European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

Written by Anja Radjenovic with Gianna Eckert,

© European Union 2020 – Source : EP / Emilie GOMEZ

The severe coronavirus outbreak has forced governments across the world to resort to drastic measures in order to slow down the spread of the virus and prevent a public health crisis. As elsewhere, these emergency measures taken in Europe have affected all aspects of societal life and profoundly impacted people’s personal freedoms and individual rights, as enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Although certain human rights can be suspended in situations of emergency, human rights conventions, such as the ECHR, continue to apply even then. In fact, many human rights instruments provide for such situations and contain dedicated ’emergency clauses’ that give governments additional flexibility to address crises. Indeed, within the ECHR framework, Article 15 is one such clause that allows Council of Europe (CoE) member states to temporarily diverge from their ordinary convention obligations to resolve an emergency, provided certain conditions are met.

During the coronavirus pandemic, derogation clauses such as Article 15 of the ECHR, have gained particular importance, as so far 10 CoE member states have notified their intention to derogate from certain ECHR provisions in order to tackle the outbreak.

This briefing explains the functioning of Article of the 15 ECHR and its application to the current health emergency. Furthermore, it lists some fundamental rights and freedoms that have been affected by the coronavirus emergency measures, while also showcasing how Member States have sought to reconcile measures to protect public health with the fundamental rights principles enshrined in the ordinary framework of the ECHR. The briefing also stresses that it is key to protect the human rights of vulnerable persons, including during the implementation of recovery strategies.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Upholding human rights in Europe during the pandemic‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘Upholding human rights in Europe during the pandemic’ on YouTube.

Written by Izabela Bacian and Ralf Drachenberg,

© European Union 2020 – Source : EP / Emilie GOMEZ

Only two weeks after the last European Council meeting, EU Heads of State or Government gather again on 15-16 October 2020, to address future EU-UK relations, EU-Africa relations and climate change. On climate, EU leaders will evaluate the progress on the EU’s objective of climate neutrality by 2050 and hold an orientation debate. Regarding EU-UK relations, they will assess the implementation of the withdrawal agreement, receive an update on the negotiations on the future EU-UK partnership and discuss the preparatory work for all scenarios after 1 January 2021. In addition to EU-Africa relations, other external relations issues are likely to be discussed, notably the poisoning of Alexei Navalny. EU leaders will also return to the handling of the coronavirus pandemic.

1. Implementation: Follow-up of previous European Council commitments

At the start of the European Council meeting, the President of the European Parliament, David Sassoli, will address the Heads of State or Government. Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, which currently holds the rotating six-month presidency of the Council of the EU, will provide an overview of progress made in implementing previous European Council conclusions.

As announced in the new Leaders’ Agenda 2020-21, EU leaders will discuss the EU-UK negotiations, hold an orientation debate on climate and focus their exchanges in the external relations field on Africa. At the special European Council meeting of 1-2 October, EU leaders also pledged to return to the matter of the poisoning of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny as well as regularly coming back to the handling of the coronavirus pandemic.

Policy area Previous commitment Occasion on which commitment was made External relations The European Council will return to the poisoning of Alexei Navalny 1-2 October 2020 Coronavirus The European Council will return to this issue regularly 1-2 October 2020 Climate change Come back in June 2020 to the objective of achieving a climate-neutral EU by 2050 12-13 December 2019

One outstanding task for the European Council is to define the strategic guidelines for legislative and operational planning within the area of freedom, security and justice, as required by Article 68 TFEU. The European Council had been expected to adopt new ‘strategic guidelines for legislative and operational planning’ within the area of freedom, security and justice in spring 2020, but the topic has still not been included on the European Council’s agenda to date, nor is it mentioned in the Leaders’ Agenda 2020-21.

2. European Council agenda points EU-UK relations

The EU and the UK have been engaged throughout the year in discussions on a new partnership agreement encompassing a wide range of areas including trade, fisheries, thematic cooperation, and internal and external security. To date, nine negotiation rounds have been held, on the basis of the Political Declaration accompanying the Withdrawal Agreement – both finalised in October 2019. The political declaration outlines the areas for negotiations, with 11 chapters opened as follows: 1. Trade in goods; 2.Trade in services and investment and other issues; 3. Level playing-field for open and fair competition; 4. Transport (aviation and roads); 5. Energy and civil nuclear cooperation; 6. Fisheries, 7. Mobility and social security coordination; 8. Law enforcement cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters; 9. Thematic cooperation; 10. Participation in Union programmes; and 11. Horizontal arrangements and governance. Foreign policy, security and defence are not formally included in these talks, but as outlined in the Political Declaration, the UK’s participation in specific EU instruments and programmes is possible.

The European Council emphasised in its guidelines of March 2018 that the future relationship should be based on a balance of right and obligations, ensure a level playing-field and respect for the integrity of the single market and the customs union, as well as the indivisibility of the four freedoms. The scope and depth of the future relationship would be determined precisely by the commitment of both parties to adhere to high standards in the areas of State aid, competition, social and employment standards, environment, climate change, and relevant tax matters.

The European Commission’s Chief Negotiator, Michel Barnier, has repeatedly stressed that the EU has paid particular attention to the UK’s three ‘red lines’, namely, ability to determine its future laws without constraints, no role for the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the ability to manage its own fisheries independently. Progress has however been slow since the very beginning. Despite convergence of positions in many areas such as trade in goods, services and investments, and Union programmes, and recent positive developments in, inter alia, social security coordination and respect for fundamental rights and freedoms, divergences have persisted on issues of major significance for the EU. These are: i. level playing-field provisions on State aid, competition, state-owned enterprises (SOEs), taxation, labour and social protection, environmental protection and the fight against climate change; ii. the governance framework, specifically on dispute settlement/ enforcement; and iii. an agreement on fisheries. While convergence is likely on competition and SOEs, difficulties remain on interpretation by the CJEU of EU law (State aid), respect for the principle of non-regression (tax avoidance, labour, environment and climate) and alignment of future legislation (labour, environment and climate change).

The negotiations were shaken up following the publication by the UK, on 9 September 2020, of the internal market bill, which, if adopted in its current form, would be in clear breach of the terms of the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland attached to the Withdrawal Agreement, with respect to state aid and customs obligations. Indeed, the Protocol states that EU State aid rules will apply to any UK act affecting trade between Northern Ireland and the EU, and while Northern Ireland remains in the UK’s customs territory, the Union Customs Code will still apply to the flow of goods between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Clauses 41-45 of the bill would over-ride these provisions. Despite the Commission’s request to amend the bill before 30 September 2020, the British government did not withdraw these provisions, leading to the launch of infringement proceedings, on 1 October 2020, as the Withdrawal Agreement provides for legal remedies in the event of violations of the obligations within it. The UK has one month to provide a reply to the Commission. The implementation of the Protocol, under the responsibility of the EU-UK Joint Committee, will also need to be stepped up as ‘no grace’ period will be granted after the end of the transition period, as stressed by Mr Barnier in July when it was clear that the UK did not wish to extend the transition period. The state of play of the negotiations was discussed briefly at the 1-2 October special European Council meeting, a substantive discussion will however take place on 15‑16 October to assess the situation as well as future scenarios after 1 January 2021. Meeting with Micheál Martin, Taoiseach of Ireland, on 8 October, Charles Michel stressed that the EU stood in full solidarity with Ireland regarding the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement, as what is at stake is the ‘peace and stability of the island of Ireland and the integrity of the single market’. He urged significant steps to be taken in the negotiations, not only on fisheries, the level playing-field and governance, but also on trade in goods, energy and water transport, as ‘nothing is agreed until everything is agreed’.

Climate change

The European Council will hold an ‘orientation debate’ on climate change, on the basis of the Commission’s 2030 Climate Target Plan. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen confirmed the EU’s determination to cut greenhouse gas emission by at least 55 % by 2030, stressing that the target was ‘ambitious, achievable and beneficial for Europe’. Voting on the proposed European Climate Law, the European Parliament supported an even higher binding target of 60 % greenhouse gas emissions cuts by 2030. Furthermore, the Parliament considers the funding for climate related projects under the 2021-27 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) insufficient to allow both the 2030 and 2050 climate targets to be met. Ahead of the coming European Council meeting, civil society representatives called for a more ambitious climate policy, warning that the Paris Agreement goal of limiting the rise of global temperature to 1.5 °C could only be met by achieving at least a 65 % reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.

EU leaders will most probably also consider progress made on achieving climate neutrality by 2050. At their last discussion on this matter in December 2019, all but one Member State, Poland, had agreed to make climate neutrality by 2050 a binding commitment to be set in the European Climate Law. In the interim, Poland has reviewed its 2040 energy roadmap and showed openness to commit to climate neutrality – albeit without confirming 2050 as a target.

Usually, at their October meeting, EU leaders take stock of progress made in the implementation of the Paris Agreement ahead of the yearly UN Conference of Parties (COP). However, due to the coronavirus outbreak, COP 26 in Glasgow was postponed by a year, to 1-12 November 2021. Nonetheless, progress will be needed in finalising and submitting national long-term strategies, as only 15 out of 27 Member States had done so by July 2020.

External relations Africa

The coronavirus outbreak led the European Council to postpone the strategic debate on relations with Africa, initially planned for June 2020. For similar reasons, the EU-African Union summit planned for autumn 2020 will most likely only take place in early 2021. The EU High Representative, Josep Borrell, recognised that the pandemic had slowed down ‘outreach efforts’, but confirmed that the ‘ambition’ to increase partnership with Africa remains intact.

A strengthened partnership with Africa has been a priority for the Presidents of both the European Council, Charles Michel, and the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, from the beginning of their respective mandates. EU-Africa relations were on the agenda of the first European Council meeting chaired by Mr Michel in December 2019. He then put cooperation in stemming the spread of coronavirus in Africa high on the agenda and welcomed the efforts made, particularly through the G20, to reduce African debt. He was active at both multilateral and bilateral levels, attending in person or by video-conference: the African Union summit, several summits with the G5 Sahel countries, as well as a series of bilateral meetings with African leaders at which economic, development and security aspects were considered. Similarly, Ursula von der Leyen spoke of Africa as ‘our close neighbour and our most natural partner’, calling for a ‘comprehensive strategy on Africa’ and making her first visit as President outside the EU to the African Union. More recently, in the ‘State of the Union’ address she underlined that the new strategy with Africa is a ‘partnership of equals’ since ‘both sides share opportunities and responsibilities’, and it will enable them to shape the world of tomorrow by working closely on climate, trade and digital.

Alexei Navalny poisoning

Following confirmation from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) that Russian opposition leader Navalny was indeed the victim of a poisoning attempt using a nerve agent, the European Council is expected to discuss his case again. Calling once again on Russia to cooperate fully with the OPCW, President Michel confirmed that EU leaders would discuss possible sanctions against Russia. Setting sanctions would allow some of the sensitivities expressed recently by certain Member States’ representatives, including the President of Lithuania, Gitanas Nausėda, as regards relations with Russia to dissipate. However, more needs to be done to ensure that EU Member States speak with one voice. To facilitate further convergence, a strategic debate on relations with Russia is scheduled for March 2021.

Other external relations issues

The European Council could consider other external relations items, in particular the situation in regions or countries which it has committed to monitor closely, as is the case for the eastern Mediterranean, Nagorno-Karabakh, Belarus and Ukraine.

Other Items Taking stock of the coronavirus pandemic

EU leaders are also expected to exchange information on coordination efforts at national and European level regarding the coronavirus pandemic. On 4 September 2020, the Commission proposed a Council recommendation on a coordinated approach to the restriction of free movement in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. The proposal outlines: i) common criteria and thresholds in deciding on whether to introduce restrictions to free movement. It also includes, ii) the mapping of common criteria using an agreed colour code; iii) a common approach to the measures applied to persons moving to and from areas which are identified as higher risk; and iv) commitments to provide the public with clear and timely information. During a meeting of the General Affairs Council on 22 September, Member States ‘expressed broad support for the proposed approach to the collection and presentation of data by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)’, and stressed the ‘importance of clear and timely communication between member states and to the public’. If the General Affairs Council of 13 October 2020 adopts this recommendation, it would most likely be welcomed by the European Council.

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

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© vik_y / Adobe Stock

The United States is heading for a presidential election on Tuesday 3rd. November that will pit incumbent Republican candidate, Donald Trump, against the former Democrat Vice President and Senator, Joe Biden. Many analysts and politicians say that this contest may well be one of the most important since the end of World War II, as it will offer a stark choice between two entirely different paths for US foreign and defence policy. During his four years in office, analysts stress how President Trump, whose decisions were often unpredictable, has reversed many aspects of traditional US foreign and defence policy, which had previously been based on a respect for international institutions and a strong Transatlantic alliance.

This note offers links to recent commentaries and reports from international think tanks on the U.S. electoral campaign and the legacy of President Trump.

Les élections américaines et au-delà
Institut français des relations internationales, October 2020

Four years of Trump: The US and the world
Istituto per gli Studi di Politica Internazionale, October 2020

A new U.S. foreign policy for the post-pandemic landscape
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, October 2020

Bonding over Beijing
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, October 2020

A U.S. foreign policy for the middle class
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, October 2020

Trump’s ‘virtual reality’ foreign policy
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, October 2020

A ReSTART for U.S.-Russian nuclear arms control: Enhancing security through cooperation
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, October 2020

The world gave the United States one do-over
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, October 2020

What a Biden administration should learn from the Trump administration’s regulatory reversals
Brookings Institution, September 2020

Trump’s violent debate performance is a reflection of his racially violent policies
Brookings Institution, September 2020

Election 2020: Where are we?
Brookings Institution, September 2020

What a second Trump term would mean for the world
Brookings Institution, October 2020

Charts of the week: Coronavirus and swing states; fading American Dream; foreign-born population share
Brookings Institution, October 2020

From consensus to conflict: Understanding foreign measures targeting U.S. elections
Rand Corporation, October 2020

How Russia targets U.S. elections, black workers and Covid-19, TikTok
Rand Corporation, October 2020

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

Trump’s international economic legacy
Bruegel, September 2020

Diversification and the world trading system
Bruegel, September 2020

Together or alone? Choices and strategies for Transatlantic relations for 2021 and beyond
German Marshall Fund, October 2020

Count people where they are
Center for American Progress, October 2020

Joe Biden’s alternative minimum book tax
American Enterprise Institute, October 2020

President Trump’s debate performance overshadows a record to support
Manhattan Institute, October 2020

Pulling U.S. forces from Europe: Show me the sense please
Friends of Europe, June 2020

America: A European power?
Friends of Europe, October 2020

Expect chaos for the November election
Heritage Foundation, September 2020

Diplomacy during the quarantine: An opportunity for more agile craftsmanship
Carnegie Europe, September 2020

A Biden victory could reset transatlantic relations
European Council on Foreign Relations, July 2020

How Europe can defend itself against US economic sanctions
European Council on Foreign Relations, August 2020

Touching the elephant: European views of the transatlantic relationship
European Council on Foreign Relations, September 2020

Trump’s Kosovo show: No big deal
European Council on Foreign Relations, September 2020

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

Why America is facing off against the International Criminal Court
European Council on Foreign Relations, September 2020

Trump’s dirty tricks
European Council on Foreign Relations, September 2020

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

Trump’s international economic legacy
Peterson Institute for International Economics, August 2020

The high taxpayer cost of ‘saving’ US jobs through ‘Made in America’
Peterson Institute for International Economics, August 2020

Trump’s trade war timeline: An up-to-date guide
Peterson Institute for International Economics, September 2020

How Trump’s export curbs on semiconductors and equipment hurt the US technology sector
Peterson Institute for International Economics, September 2020

Americans’ views of government: Low trust, but some positive performance ratings
Pew Research Center, September 2020

Voters’ attitudes about race and gender are even more divided than in 2016
Pew Research Center, September 2020

Trump-Biden, Round One: Lots of animosity, little in the way of straight answers
Hoover Institution, September 2020

Donald Trump’s foreign policy successes
Hoover Institution, September 2020

One thing Biden and Trump seem to agree on: We need to focus on innovation
German Marshall Fund, September 2020

What if elections didn’t matter? The Belgian solution
Cato, August 2020

Balancing tradeoffs between liberties and lives
Cato, September 2020

Covid-19 is also a reallocation shock
Cato, September 2020

Dutch views transatlantic ties and European security cooperation
Clingendael, September 2020

Trump has a serious young voter problem
NDN, September 2020

Donald Trump and Sonny Perdue’s USDA made the Covid-19 hunger crisis worse
Center for American Progress, September 2020

The GOP’s pivot away from fiscal relief hurts millions of Americans
Progressive Policy Institute, September 2020

Biden versus Trump
Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft, August 2020

The US troop withdrawal plan
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, August 2020

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

Amerikas apartheid: Der neue alte Exzeptionalismus und seine außenpolitischen Folgen
German Council on Foreign Relations, July 2020

An all-mail election would be dangerous for democracy
Heritage Foundation, June 2020

Fostering Europe’s strategic autonomy: A new agenda for trade and investment
European Policy Centre, Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, June 2020

Democracy maybe: Attitudes on authoritarianism in America

New America Foundation, June 2020

Understanding gender equality in foreign policy
Council on Foreign Relations, June 2020

Read this briefing on ‘Trump or Biden: Where next for US foreign and defence policy?‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Katarzyna Sochacka and Clare Ferguson,

© European Union 2020 – Source : EP / Emilie GOMEZ

During the first October 2020 plenary session in Brussels, Parliament held a debate on the rule of law and fundamental rights in the context of introducing conditionality measures in the framework of the 2021‑2027 multiannual financial framework (MFF) and Next Generation EU. In parallel, Parliament’s negotiating team on the next MFF announced a pause in talks, due to concerns over the Council’s lack of engagement on the key issue of top-ups for 15 flagship EU programmes. Parliament also discussed the conclusions of the special European Council meeting of 1‑2 October and the preparations for the next regular European Council meeting, on 15‑16 October 2020.

Parliament approved the allocation of new responsibilities to Executive Vice-President of the Commission Valdis Dombrovskis and approved the appointment of Mairead McGuinness as member of the European Commission.

Parliament also debated the role of the European Supervisory Authorities in the Wirecard scandal, on the fight against money laundering, following the FinCEN revelations, and on the impact of the Covid‑19 outbreak on long-term care facilities. Parliament debated statements from the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borell, on the resumption of hostilities between Armenia and Azerbaijan in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, on the EU diplomatic mission in Venezuela, and on the situation in Iran.

EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights

Members debated, and approved by a large majority, a Parliament legislative-initiative report on the creation of an annual monitoring mechanism on the rule of law, fundamental rights and democracy that proposes to integrate and reinforce respect for democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights (DRF) in the EU. These shared values are binding on Member States and the European Union (EU) institutions, and while several mechanisms have been created to promote them and ensure they are respected, these are judged not to be effective. Members were critical of the extent of the protection afforded to the EU budget under the current Council position now the subject of trilogue negotiations. However, Parliament’s aim is to have a mechanism that goes much wider to cover values beyond just the rule of law, as in the current MFF-linked proposal.

Digital finance

Members debated and adopted, by a large majority, an Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee (ECON) legislative initiative report with recommendations for the European Commission on regulating digital finance. The report takes a closer look at the emerging risks in crypto-assets and the regulatory and supervisory challenges, where fintech provides unprecedented opportunities for both a more efficient and transparent financial sector – and for financial criminals to escape detection. The ECON committee calls on the European Commission to propose comprehensive supervisory measures to regulate crypto-assets, such as Bitcoin, to boost cyber-resilience in view of the vulnerability of such virtual assets to cyber-attack, as well as to improve the management of associated data.

Capital markets union

Parliament focused on proposals for further development of the capital markets union, particularly to offer small businesses and individual investors a wider range of investment options and help drive the recovery. The ECON committee report Members debated and approved proposes the urgent removal of barriers to investment. It also calls for an EU framework for digital finance that provides high data-protection and privacy standards (and challenges the dominance of large technology companies); improved promotion of financial literacy; and for the EU to consider equivalence decisions for suitable third-country markets.

Amending budget No 7/2020: Update of revenue (own resources)

Members voted on amending budget No 7/2020, approving the Council position and definitively adopting the update to the revenue side of the current year’s EU budget, in view of the negative impact of coronavirus on the EU economic outlook, as well as other technical issues. Although income from value added tax and gross national income is falling as a result of the economic climate, and negative exchange rates have also had an impact, more positively, the amounts available from paid-up fines and penalties has increased.

European Climate Law

Members debated and approved the Commission’s proposal for a new European Climate Law. However, while the Commission is proposing a 55 % reduction in EU greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, Parliament endorsed the demands of an Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Committee (ENVI) report calling for greater ambition: 60 % reductions in 2030, a 2040 target and all Member States to be climate neutral in 2050. The vote determines Parliament’s position for trilogue negotiations once the Council adopts its position.

Gender balance on company boards

Members debated, with the Commission and the Council, the current state of play of the much-delayed proposed directive to ensure gender balance on company boards, agreed by Parliament in 2013. Parliament has long supported the measures and called for progress on the file, which remains blocked in Council. Proven to improve the health, value and transparency of companies, the proposal seeks to ensure that listed companies’ boards have at least 40 % of non-executive directors of the under-represented sex.

European forest strategy

A vital resource in the fight against climate change, to date the EU has no policy on forests and the forestry sector, meaning that management of this precious resource is somewhat fragmented. Members debated and adopted an Agriculture and Rural Development Committee report on the way forward for a European forest strategy. The strategy could pave the way for an ambitious approach to sustainable forest management where adapting to changing climate conditions and promoting environmental, societal and economic sustainability will maintain both economic viability and environmental sustainability, including helping to tackle disastrous forest fires.

Channel Tunnel

Parliament debated and endorsed two proposals on legislation to ensure the safe operation of the railway between France and the United Kingdom after December 2020. Negotiations between France and the UK can now begin on a new international agreement on safety arrangements. The current safety authority would retain oversight of operations in the tunnel.

Opening of trilogue negotiations

Members confirmed three mandates for negotiations: from the International Trade (INTA) Committee on the proposal for a regulation introducing exceptional trade measures for countries and territories participating in or linked to the European Union’s Stabilisation and Association process; from the Budgets (BUDG) and the ECON Committees on the proposal for a regulation establishing a Technical Support Instrument, and from the Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL) Committee on the proposal for a regulation on the introduction of specific measures for addressing the Covid‑19 crisis.

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

Written by Eamonn Noonan,

Summary

© Adobe Stock

Strategic foresight can help near-term recovery become resilient over the long term. This is the key message of the European Commission’s first ever annual Foresight Report. The coronavirus crisis has shown the interconnectedness of today’s world, as well as the difficulty of effectively identifying and communicating emerging challenges. More than ever, systematic and participatory work to explore both opportunities and vulnerabilities, and to tease out synergies across sectors, is needed.

Background

With the 2020 Strategic Foresight Report, the effort to enhance the EU’s foresight capacity moves to a new phase. This is a response to the present pandemic and to earlier crises that called into question the effectiveness of EU horizon-scanning. It also takes forward the work of the interinstitutional ESPAS network, which has pressed the case for anticipatory governance through its activities and reports on global trends.

The report examines EU capacities, vulnerabilities and opportunities across four priority areas: socio-economic, geo-political, green, and digital. It emphasises the connections between sectors. One example is the interplay between new technology, job creation, education needs and stakeholder interests. Another is the case of critical raw materials. Reducing dependence on these can have benefits across the green, digital, strategic and economic agendas.

Economic and social sphere

Challenges abound in the wake of the pandemic. According to the report, ‘economic, gender, skills, regional, and ethnic inequalities have all worsened’. Regional inequalities and the problems of rural areas mean that a ‘geography of discontent’ must be addressed.

In order to reinvigorate Europe’s social market economy model, social and fiscal reforms need to be aligned with the objectives of inclusiveness, digitalisation, decarbonisation and sustainability. Resilience involves not simply the maintenance of existing social systems, but also adaptation to ensure that they thrive in the future.

Public and private investments are key to resilience and recovery, but there are questions about the narrow focus on gross domestic product (GDP) as a metric. A well-being index may well be more suitable now.

Open strategic autonomy

Against a background of renewed international tensions, the report suggests that ‘the EU needs a common understanding of the security environment’. Threats to cybersecurity are accelerating; key infrastructure must also be made more resilient.

But strategic autonomy cannot be seen as purely defensive. Quite the opposite. The report sees an opportunity to revitalise the rules-based multilateral order, based on the realisation that ‘global challenges require effective, agile international cooperation and common solutions’. Trade remains central to the EU’s power and resilience, and the promotion of a level playing-field can address existing vulnerabilities. Production capacity in Europe needs attention, especially in strategic sectors.

A green future

Environment policy can benefit from greater foresight capacity as it negotiates both huge challenges and huge opportunities. The International Labour Organization (ILO) suggests a well-managed shift to a greener economy could create 24 million new jobs globally by 2030. Clean, circular production can drive both competitiveness and growth. Environmental restoration will become increasingly important.

The stakes are high; global warming of 3 °C would result in a loss of 1.36 % of GDP, or over €170 billion a year –as well as tens of thousands of lives. Digitalisation has an environmental cost: the mining of bitcoins is reckoned to consume more energy than Austria or Czechia, while the global footprint of the tech sector is similar to that of the aviation industry.

Resilience is improved if growth and wellbeing can be decoupled from consumption of natural resources with the attendant environmental impact; this long-term challenge calls for long-term policy planning.

Digital opportunities and vulnerabilities

Opportunities abound in the digital sector; new technologies have a positive impact in several areas, from enhancing healthcare and the delivery of public services to augmenting productivity and reducing carbon footprints.

There are significant risks, including the accentuation of inequalities, the erosion of individual rights and the further spread of disinformation intended to undermine democracy.

Modern, secure, and high-speed infrastructure can help overcome today’s digital divides, whether social or between urban and rural areas. Structured foresight analysis can examine ways to steer innovation towards outcomes which mesh with the goals of inclusiveness, sustainability, democracy and security.

Strategic foresight as a resource for governance

The Commission report sets out several foresight techniques which will inform its policy-making.

• Horizon scanning is critical to the early identification of emerging threats.
• Scenario development can give a framework for high-level debates on preferred futures.

Another innovation is the use of resilience dashboards, alongside existing monitoring work on the Social Scoreboard and the Sustainable Development Goals. Dashboards are at the meeting point of foresight and policy. They offer the opportunity to compare where we are with where we want to be.

Identifying roadblocks is a first step towards designing instruments to overcome them, and to channelling resources to vulnerable areas.

They are all the more important at the intersection of levels of government. Linking the levels can help towards greater synergy between actions at regional, national and European level.

A similar approach has been followed by a risk mapping and capabilities and gaps mapping produced by the European Parliament as think pieces for the Foresight Report. This is a step towards systematically matching capabilities, at regional, national and EU levels, to the risks identified as most serious. As the EP risk mapping notes, there are high-impact risks for which the EU level currently has no available instruments; this needs particular attention.

The initiatives set out in the report, taken together, can align policy and planning across the geopolitical, green and digital areas, and thereby enhance social and economic resilience in the long run.

Conclusion

Strategy is a process, not an event. Recognising this, the Commission’s first Foresight Report emphasises the importance of a broad-based and participatory approach. Thus the ESPAS Conference will see the launch of an EU-wide Foresight Network, including both European and Member State bodies, and involving the private sector and independent experts. The Commission also anticipates that foresight work can contribute to the Conference on the Future of Europe.

Foresight is relevant across the entire policy cycle, and improved foresight capacity is all the more valuable a resource at a time when a pandemic has brought such acute challenges for governance in Europe and around the world.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Foresight for resilience: The European Commission’s first annual Foresight Report‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Agnieszka Widuto,

The Just Transition Fund will support European Union (EU) regions relying on fossil fuels and high-emission industries in their green transition. Our animated infographic shows how it works.

What is the Just Transition Fund?

The Just Transition Fund is an EU funding tool for regions dependent on fossil fuels and high-emission industries. The aim is to help them prepare for the transition necessary to achieve at least a 55 % reduction in emissions by 2030, and climate neutrality by 2050.

The European Green Deal and EU climate policies aim to improve environmental quality, ensure clean air and reduce health risks for the population. To achieve this green transition, the EU will support carbon-intensive regions in diversifying their economies and creating new jobs. Activities supported by the Just Transition Fund will include investments in small and medium-sized enterprises, research and innovation, renewable energy, emissions reduction, clean energy technologies, site regeneration, circular economy, and upskilling and reskilling of workers. The Just Transition Fund is part of a broader Just Transition Mechanism, which also includes two other pillars: a scheme under InvestEU aimed at mobilising private investments and a public sector loan facility to generate public financing.

The introductory section of the infographic provides an overview of the most important details of the Just Transition Fund.

How much funding?

In January 2020, the European Commission proposed an allocation for the Just Transition Fund (JTF) amounting to €7.5 billion under the 2021‑2027 EU budget. In light of the coronavirus pandemic, the Commission increased this amount to €10 billion from the EU budget and added a top-up of €30 billion from the Next Generation EU instrument in May 2020. This brought the total JTF amount to €40 billion. It is expected that the EU budget amount will be complemented by national co-financing and transfers from the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund+. With additional funds generated through InvestEU and public sector loan facility, the Just Transition Mechanism is expected to mobilise at least €150 billion of investment.

Animated  infographic on Just Transition Fund

At the European Council meeting in July 2020, EU leaders proposed an allocation of €7.5 billion under the EU budget and €10 billion from Next Generation EU, reducing the total JTF budget to €17.5 billion. The European Parliament, in its amendments to the Commission proposal voted in September 2020, recommended raising the core budget amount of JTF to over €25 billion.

A section of the infographic called ‘Allocations’ shows a break-down of the amounts for each pillar of the Just Transition Mechanism, expected additional funding mobilised, and amounts proposed by each of the EU institutions during the negotiation process. By clicking on each respective EU institution, the infographic immediately shows the differences between their proposals.

Which regions will the JTF support?

Funding is available to all EU countries. The European Commission identified a preliminary list of eligible regions in each country.

The allocation method is based on the following socio-economic criteria: industrial emissions in regions with high carbon intensity; employment in industry in these regions; employment in coal and lignite mining; production of peat; production of oil shale and oil sands.

In the ‘JTF Allocation Method’ section, the infographic shows total JTF allocations by Member State and the aid intensity per inhabitant, according to the May 2020 Commission proposal. It explains the allocation method and provides graphs for each of the allocation components by Member State. Click on an individual country to see more detailed information on the allocations. The visualisation also takes the additional criteria mentioned in the proposal (minimum and maximum level of support and a prosperity criterion) into account.

The infographic was prepared by Sorina Ionescu and Frederik Scholaert. Each section of the infographic provides a link to Further reading materials, including an EPRS legislative briefing on the Just Transition Fund.

Written by Etienne Deschamps,

© European Parliament 2020

During the night of 9 to 10 November 1989, with absolutely no warning, the Berlin Wall opened at the same time as the communist government of the German Democratic Republic collapsed. For the first time in nearly 30 years, East Berliners could travel freely to the other side of the Iron Curtain: history was made, and the Cold War was coming to an end. A month later, the Brandenburg Gate officially opened, restoring free movement between the two German states. In less than a year, Germany regained both its unity and its sovereignty. This was a source of great satisfaction for the European Parliament, which was involved in the preparations for the reunification. Since 1990, the third day in October is celebrated as the Day of German Unity (‘Tag der deutschen Einheit’). Saturday 3 October 2020 marked the 30th anniversary of German unification, an event which profoundly changed the course of European integration.

This year, the European Parliament took the opportunity to pay tribute to this historic event, through an entirely virtual exhibition. The exhibition, entitled ‘It was 30 years ago: The European Parliament, the fall of the Berlin Wall and German reunification‘ is freely available in 24 languages on Europeana, the EU’s online library. The exhibition was launched in September by the Parliament’s liaison office in Berlin during the 2020 Berlin Lights Festival ‘Berlin leuchtet’, where the motto this year was ‘United’. The online exhibition aims to shed light on the important role played by the European Parliament and its increasing involvement in the process. It relates directly to the events that took place between 9 November 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell, and 3 October 1990, when Germany was reunified. However, the exhibition really begins in the middle of the Cold War, with the construction of the Berlin Wall, in August 1961, and illustrates the reaction of the then European Community. It also recalls that on numerous occasions from the 1960s to the 1980s, the European Parliament sought to uphold human rights and fundamental freedoms in the world, particularly in countries on the other side of the Iron Curtain.

However, the archive photos, texts and documents reproduced in the exhibition – which in some cases have never been displayed in public – also demonstrate what the consequences of unification would be for the European Parliament. For several months, the European Parliament provided a forum for the European leaders tasked with preparing Germany’s unification. In response to the political, economic and institutional implications of this historic moment for the European Community, the Members of the European Parliament supported German unification, and increasingly called for democratisation and respect for human rights in Central and Eastern Europe. For the European Parliament, the prospect of German unification was an historic opportunity to overcome the division of Europe. However, it was also a chance to consolidate political balances, promote détente, and encourage peace processes, to stimulate cooperation among the peoples of Europe and strengthen democracy and pluralism throughout the continent. This explains why Parliament set up a temporary committee with the task of assessing the effects of German unification on the European Community. The exhibition also provides information regarding the issue of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) representatives’ participation in parliamentary work. What would their status be? How many of them would there be and how would they be appointed? Would they have voting rights? Not forgetting the logistical issues … In the end, they were given observer status. Some would later be elected Members of the European Parliament in the June 1994 European elections. Finally, the exhibition also shows that, despite the speed of events, the Parliament played a key role in the adoption of all the necessary legislation to integrate the ex-GDR, as part of the united Germany, into the Union.

Click to view slideshow.

Written by Martin Russell,

Armenia and Azerbaijan are bitterly opposed over Nagorno-Karabakh, an Armenian-backed separatist territory that international law recognises as part of Azerbaijan. The fighting, which began in September 2020, is the worst since 1994, when a ceasefire ended a two-year bloody war. With Turkey openly backing Azerbaijan, there are fears that this could trigger conflict with Russia, Armenia’s main ally.

Historical background

Map – Armenia, Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh

Tensions between Armenia and Azerbaijan have mostly concerned Nagorno-Karabakh, a mountainous region inhabited by ethnic Armenians but recognised under international law as belonging to Azerbaijan. Part of Russia since the 19th century, Nagorno-Karabakh was incorporated by the Soviet Union into Azerbaijan in 1923. Under Soviet rule, tensions were mostly subdued, but as repression eased under Mikhail Gorbachev in the 1980s, Karabakh Armenians became increasingly resentful of what they saw as forced ‘Azerification’ of the region. This led to protests and, in 1988, demands for unification with Armenia. Clashes between Karabakh Armenians and Azerbaijanis became increasingly violent. In 1990, Armenia declared independence from the Soviet Union, followed by Azerbaijan one year later, leading Nagorno-Karabakh in turn to secede from Azerbaijan. The result was a bloody war that lasted two years, killed between 20 000 and 30 000 people and displaced around one million more from their homes. By the time a Russian-mediated ceasefire took hold in May 1994, Karabakh forces backed by Armenia had repelled Azerbaijan’s much larger army from most of the territory, as well as capturing adjacent areas of Azerbaijan. Together with Nagorno-Karabakh, these areas amount to around one-sixth of Azerbaijani territory outside Baku’s control.

A frozen conflict

The situation since 1994 has been more or less frozen, periodically heating up due to border clashes. Armenia has not recognised Nagorno-Karabakh’s independence, but it provides the province – which it refers to as Artsakh – with military and economic support, contributing half of its budget. The Minsk Group, which was set up by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) in 1992 to mediate between the two sides and is co-chaired by France, Russia and the United States, has not managed to find a political settlement. In 2007, it presented the six Madrid principles, revised in 2009, as a basis for negotiations. The main elements of these are: a guaranteed interim status for the region, pending a legally binding referendum on its final status; the return of all occupied territories outside Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijani control, with the exception of a corridor connecting to Armenia; and the right of all displaced persons to return to their former places of residence. However, Armenia and Azerbaijan have not been able to agree on these principles, or on how they would be implemented. Since 1994, hardly a year has gone by without violence along Armenia’s and Nagorno-Karabakh’s borders with Azerbaijan. The worst violence to date was in 2016, when a brief but intense episode claimed around 350 lives, according to a US estimate. In 2018, Nikol Pashinyan became prime minister of Armenia after a ‘Velvet Revolution’ toppled his predecessor Serzh Sargsyan. Pashinyan showed signs of willingness to settle the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict: after his first meeting with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, the two leaders agreed to work on reducing tensions and to set up a direct hotline between them. However, since then Pashinyan’s rhetoric has hardened: in August 2019, he called for unification between Karabakh and Armenia.

The latest clashes

A July 2020 border skirmish triggered massive protests in Baku, with thousands of demonstrators calling for the country to go to war with Armenia. Renewed hostilities, which each of the two sides blames the other for starting, began on 27 September in Nagorno-Karabakh. As of 5 October, the official (probably understated) death toll had already reached nearly 250, the highest number since 2016. Fighting is also more intense than in previous clashes, with tanks, fighter planes, helicopters and heavy artillery. Civilian targets have come under fire in Stepanakert, the capital of Nagorno-Karabakh. Although most of the fighting is in and around Karabakh, Azerbaijan claims that Armenian forces shelled Ganja, its second largest city, while Armenia says that it intercepted Azerbaijani drones close to Yerevan. Azerbaijan, Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh have all declared martial law and started to mobilise their troops.

Whereas Armenia has expressed willingness to engage in OSCE-led peace talks, Azerbaijan insists that a ceasefire is only possible once Armenia has withdrawn from Karabakh and all other occupied areas. Baku, which has a much larger and better equipped army, claims that it has already captured several villages, and may be hoping for further gains; however, the 1992-1994 war shows that significant advances against fierce Armenian resistance into Karabakh’s rugged terrain will be difficult.

International implications of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

Although pipelines bringing Azerbaijani oil and gas to Europe pass not far from Armenia, analysts have downplayed the threat of disruption to energy markets. On the other hand, there is a more serious risk of the conflict embroiling the two main regional powers, Turkey and Russia. Russia is Armenia’s military ally (both countries are members of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, CSTO) and main weapons supplier; since the 2016 clash, deliveries of Russian weapons (which are sold to Yerevan at a discounted rate) have increased substantially. Armenia also hosts 3 300 Russian soldiers at a base less than 10 kilometres from the Turkish border. However, Moscow also exports weapons to Azerbaijan (which has purchased five times more than Armenia since 2010). Although Baku has resisted joining Russian-led structures such as the CSTO and the Eurasian Economic Union, good ties with Moscow are key to its efforts to build a balanced foreign policy. Traditionally, Russia has played the role of mediator, for example through the Minsk Group.

While Russia and practically the entire international community – including the United Nations Security Council – have called on the two sides to immediately stop fighting and return to the negotiating table, Turkey has fully aligned itself with Azerbaijan’s position that Armenia first needs to withdraw from Nagorno-Karabakh. For nearly a century, Ankara’s relations with Yerevan have been poisoned by the Armenian genocide; on the other hand, Azerbaijan is close to Turkey as a Turkic-speaking nation, energy supplier and defence partner; in August 2020, the two countries held a major joint military drill. Turkey denies being directly involved in the conflict – for example, rejecting Yerevan’s claims that it downed an Armenian warplane – but it has also said that it will do ‘what is necessary’ to back Azerbaijan. There is evidence that Turkey may have sent Syrian rebel fighters to fight alongside Azerbaijani forces. According to French President Emmanuel Macron, who also denounced Ankara’s ‘warlike rhetoric’ as unacceptable, 300 jihadists transited Turkey on their way to Nagorno-Karabakh.

Nagorno-Karabakh has now become a third theatre of war – together with Syria and Libya – where Turkey and Russia back opposing sides. So far, the two countries have managed to compartmentalise their relations. For example, a February 2020 incident in which 33 Turkish soldiers were killed by Russia-backed Syrian government forces did not significantly strain ties. With Turkey looking to balance its increasingly difficult relations with the West, and Russia keen to broaden its influence in the Middle East, broader geopolitical interests still outweigh such differences in overall Turkey-Russia relations. However, that could change if the conflict escalates and Russia feels that its strategic interests are threatened by Turkey.

EU position: On 27 September, High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President Josep Borrell called on the two sides to stop fighting immediately and return to negotiations within the Minsk Group. The High Representative is due to make a statement to the European Parliament on 7 October.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Armenia and Azerbaijan on the brink of war‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

While the coronavirus crisis continues to strain Europe’s resilience to the very limit, there are nevertheless some positive outcomes. Many have come to question arrangements that previously seemed immutable – swapping the workplace for working from home, or recognising an opportunity to move towards greater strategic sovereignty for instance. Can the European Union harness such innovations to continue to make life better for Europeans? How can the European Union prepare to face such world-changing shocks in the future? Will we emerge stronger from the crisis?

EPRS analysts have taken advantage of the summer months to prepare a series of forward-looking Ideas Papers that seek to analyse how the coronavirus crisis has impacted various areas of EU policy and identify options for how those policies might be further developed in the future. These cover policy areas from public health to international trade, civil protection to the transport situation. A further set of Ideas Papers explore how the Union could develop greater resilience to withstand unexpected future shocks and strengthen its capacity for collective action.

Author Thinking about future EU policy Public health Gianluca QUAGLIO Social and employment Nora MILOTAY Food supply and food security Rachele ROSSI Civil protection capabilities Leopold SCHMERTZING European economic recovery Jerome SAULNIER Economic and Monetary Union Angelos DELIVORIAS Climate change and climate action Gregor ERBACH International Trade Jana TITIEVSKAIA Transport Jaan SOONE Towards a more resilient EU Democracy, freedom and the rule of law Wouter VAN BALLEGOOIJ Free movement within the EU Costica DUMBRAVA Linking the levels of governance Klemen ZUMER Strategic sovereignty for Europe Suzana ANGHEL Digital sovereignty for Europe Tambiama MADIEGA European interests and values Naja BENTZEN European competitiveness and global growth Stanislas DE FINANCE Future of multilateralism and strategic partnerships Elena LAZAROU

Written by Marcin Szczepański (1st edition),

© Richard Villalon / Adobe Stock

In May 2020, the European Commission adopted a proposal on a Solvency Support Instrument. The aim is to support otherwise viable companies in the Union that face solvency difficulties as a result of the coronavirus crisis, and to mitigate possible distortions to the single market and its level playing field. Such distortions are to be expected given the differing degree to which the Member States are affected and the likely unevenness of their responses, which may depend on their fiscal capacity and level of debt. The Commission proposes to increase the guarantee provided to the European Investment Bank under the European Fund for Strategic Investments and to use it to support financial intermediaries, which will then select companies eligible for solvency help.

At the European Council meeting in July 2020, EU Heads of State or Government did not take up the idea of the solvency support instrument. Both the European Parliament and Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, have expressed regret at this. Continuing the examination of the proposal in Parliament, the co-rapporteurs have published a draft report in which they propose to widen the scope of eligible companies and ensure fair geographical distribution.

Versions

• Solvency Support Instrument

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2015/1017 as regards creation of a Solvency Support Instrument Committee responsible: Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON)
Budgets (BUDG) jointly under Rule 58 COM(2020) 404
29.5.2020 Rapporteur: José Manuel Fernandes (EPP, Spain)
Irene Tinagli (S&D, Italy)
Nils Torvalds (Renew Europe, Finland) 2020/0106 (COD) Shadow rapporteurs: Frances Fitzgerald (EPP), Victor Negrescu (S&D), Billy Kelleher (Renew Europe), Gunnar Beck (ID), Hélène Laporte (ID), Claude Gruffat (Greens/EFA), Henrike Hahn (Greens/EFA), Bogdan Rzońca (ECR), Johan Van Overtveldt (ECR), José Gusmão (GUE/NGL), Dimitrios Papadimoulis (GUE/NGL) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Adoption of report in joint committee

Written by Ralf Drachenberg,

© Adobe Stock

At the special European Council meeting of 1-2 October 2020, Charles Michel, President of the European Council, presented a new Leaders’ Agenda outlining his view of ‘the key challenges confronting the Union’ and setting a timetable for the Heads of State or Government to address these issues at meetings between October 2020 and June 2021. The new Leaders’ Agenda puts strong focus on the ‘green transition and digital transformation’, as well as on ‘Europe’s role in the world’, two core priorities in the EU Strategic Agenda 2019-24. Mr Michel intends to structure the approach to external relations discussions, notably through a series of strategic debates on relations with key partners. A number of EU priority topics are however missing, notably migration, the rule of law and the Conference on the Future of Europe. Mr Michel has, however, stated that the Leaders’ Agenda is a flexible tool, which can be updated as circumstances require.

Meetings and topics of the Leaders’ Agenda 2020-21

As flagged up in the EPRS outlook for the special meeting of 1-2 October 2020, President Charles Michel set out his vision of the main issues to be dealt with by his institution in the coming year in the form of a Leaders’ Agenda 2020-21. Along the lines of the Leaders’ Agenda put forward by then-President Donald Tusk in October 2017, this document sets out a work programme for the European Council up to June 2021. Surprisingly, it only covers a period of nine months, as opposed to 18 months for the first Leaders’ Agenda. Eight European Council meetings (including the 1-2 October one) are planned up to June 2021, including two informal meetings, one on China and the other on the social impact of the digital and green transformation, as well as a special meeting due to address both health issues and European security and defence (see Table 1). The agenda also includes two Euro Summits, in November 2020 and in March 2021, and envisages a series of summits with third countries: an EU-African Union Summit, an EU leaders-Chinese President meeting, a Western Balkans Summit, an ASEM Summit and a possible EU-CELAC summit.

Table 1: Main issues to be discussed at EU leaders’ meetings, October 2020 – June 2021

Date Meeting type Main issues 2020 1-2 October Regular European Council Digital, single market and industrial policy, and external relations (Turkey, China) 15-16 October Regular European Council EU-UK negotiations, climate (orientation debate) and external relations (Africa)) 16 November Informal European Council (Berlin) China 10-11 December Regular European Council Climate, trade and external relations (Southern Neighbourhood) Meeting with the African Union Euro Summit meeting Banking union and capital markets union 2021 February Special European Council Health, and European security and defence February Eastern Partnership Summit 25-26 March Regular European Council Digital, including digital taxation, single market and industrial policy as well as external relations (Russia) Euro Summit meeting International role of the euro 7-8 May Informal European Council (Portugal) Social impact of the digital and green transformation EU-India leaders’ meeting 24-25 June Regular European Council Future of Schengen and external relations (UK)

Presented as ‘an ambitious European Council agenda covering the key challenges confronting the Union, the new Leaders’ Agenda puts particular emphasis on the green transition and digital transformation, as well as on making the EU a strong global player. It aims to push ahead with the policy priorities outlined by the European Council in its Strategic Agenda 2019-24: i) protecting citizens and freedoms; ii) developing a strong and vibrant economic base; iii) building a climate-neutral, green, fair and social Europe; and iv) promoting European interests and values on the global stage.

As regards the fourth priority, Mr Michel aims at developing a more structured approach to dealing with the EU’s external relations. He has underlined that the ‘EU’s role in the world will be on every #EUCO agenda’, and indeed, all but one of the European Council meetings have a strategic discussion on a specific external relations topic. The exception is the planned informal meeting in May 2021, which will be dedicated to the ‘social impact of the digital and green transformation’, but will take place back-to-back with the EU-India meeting, which is not a European Council meeting. The Leaders’ Agenda notably includes a strategic discussion on Africa in October 2020 and one on Russia in March 2021. The last strategic discussion of the European Council on Russia was planned for 21-22 October 2016, but at that time, the European Council mainly discussed whether or not to introduce sanctions on Russia in relation to its involvement in the Syrian conflict. The new agenda confirms the recent trend to organise EU summits with third countries, such as the EU-Western Balkans summit, with the attendance of all or most EU Heads of State or Government, rather than just the presidents of the European Council and the Commission, the president-in-office of the Council, and the EU High Representative/Vice President.

The absence of a number of key issues from the Leaders’ Agenda is striking: next to the Conference on the Future of Europe, one of the four core priorities of the Strategic Agenda 2019-24, ‘protecting citizens and freedoms’ is barely included. Even though a discussion on the future of Schengen is planned for June 2021, sensitive topics such as migration and asylum, and the rule of law are missing.

Working method under the Leaders’ Agenda

Figure 1: Leaders’ Agenda decision-making process

The first Leaders’ Agenda was launched at the European Council meeting of 19-20 October 2017, in order to facilitate the finding of consensus among the EU leaders on otherwise intractable issues. It initiated a new working method for the European Council with the introduction of a special format of the European Council, Leaders’ Meetings, which were informal debates stimulated with ‘Leaders’ notes’ from the president, outlining the main challenges and sticking-points on the topic concerned. The aim was to help EU leaders reach agreement and enable them to approve conclusions at a subsequent, regular meeting of the European Council. The idea of only adopting conclusions at a later meeting has been kept in the new Leaders’ Agenda, which states that ‘where no immediate conclusions are drawn, the outcome of the debates will be reflected in later conclusions’. Whether special notes will be prepared or implementation reports drawn up remains to be seen. However, Mr Michel did mention the possibility of using smaller formats, with only some EU leaders, to prepare the discussions in the European Council itself.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘European Council Leaders’ Agenda 2020-21‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Ralf Drachenberg and Suzana Anghel,

© Adobe Stock

The European Council meeting of 1-2 October 2020 was largely dedicated to external relations. EU leaders discussed a wide range of foreign policy issues, including relations with China, Nagorno-Karabakh and the Navalny poisoning attempt. Particular attention was paid to the situation in the Eastern Mediterranean, with EU leaders extending an offer to cooperate with Turkey – provided the current path to dialogue was maintained – while envisaging all options otherwise. On Belarus, the leaders agreed on restrictive measures against officials responsible for repression and election falsification. Also on the agenda were the single market, industrial policy and digital transformation, notably in the context of EU strategic autonomy. There was also an in-depth discussion on coordination of the coronavirus pandemic response. Finally, the President presented the new Leaders’ Agenda 2020-21, foreseeing the main topics for discussion up to June 2021.

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. He referred notably to three topics not formally on the European Council agenda: migration, the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) and the Conference on the Future of Europe. On the first topic, he stressed that the EU ‘must show the courage needed to reach agreement on a common immigration and asylum policy based on solidarity and responsibility’. On negotiations between co-legislators on the next MFF, President Sassoli stressed that the ‘delays are due to a lack of counter-proposals from the Council. Parliament has made many concessions to the Council. If there is a will, a political agreement can be reached quickly’. At the opening press conference, Charles Michel, President of the European Council, had briefly touched upon the recovery fund and the MFF, stressing that it was crucial to implement EU leaders’ decisions from July 2020 as soon as possible. Finally, on the planned Conference on the Future of Europe, Mr Sassoli invited EU Heads of State or Government ‘to take a decision at the next European Council which enables us to start the Conference in Strasbourg as soon as possible’.

The European Council welcomed the new Prime Minister of Belgium, Alexander De Croo. Swedish Prime Minster Stefan Löfven was unable to attend and was represented by the Finnish Prime Minister, Sanna Marrin. The French President, Emmanuel Macron, had to leave the meeting after the first day and was then represented by the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel.

An important development regarding the work of the European Council was the presentation by Charles Michel of the Leaders’ Agenda 2020-21. Designed as a work programme for the European Council, it outlines the main meetings of the EU Heads of State or Government up to June 2021 and the topics to be discussed (see EPRS publication European Council Leaders’ Agenda 2020-21).

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 2020-21 Digital policy Develop a digital compass, setting out the EU’s digital ambitions for 2030 European Commission March 2021 Develop an EU-wide framework for secure public electronic identification (e-ID) European Commission Mid-2021 Single market, industrial policy and digital Return to the topics European Commission March 2021 External relations Return to the Navalny case European Council 15-16 October 2020 Eastern Mediterranean Monitor developments and compliance closely and return to this issue European Commission December 2020 2. European Council meeting: Main agenda points Coronavirus

The European Council held an in-depth discussion on the coordination of the response to the pandemic, and in its conclusions called on the Council and the Commission ‘to further step up the overall coordination effort and the work on the development and distribution of a vaccine at the EU level’. Michel stated that Covid-19 vaccines should be considered as ‘a common good’.

Main message of Parliament’s President: David Sassoli argued that the coronavirus crisis had ‘high­lighted the need to give the EU a far greater role in the area of health, and to seek more innovative digital solutions in this area. This should translate into an increased budget for the EU4Health programme’.

Single market, industrial policy and digital transition

‘Achieving strategic autonomy while preserving an open economy’ was set as an objective for the Union, confirming the EU’s willingness to address existing vulnerabilities, build a robust industrial base and continue to cooperate with partners. Increased convergence on the notion of ‘strategic autonomy’ could be observed since the coronavirus outbreak, although sensitivities may persist.

Single market and industrial policy

EU leaders stressed the need to return to a fully functional single market as soon as possible and to remove unjustified remaining barriers, with strict implementation of the single market enforcement action plan. The European Council also endorsed the Council conclusions of 21 September 2020 on a ‘deepened single market for a strong recovery and a competitive, sustainable Europe’.

The European Council restated its commitment to updating the EU competition framework to meet the challenges of the twin digital and green transitions, and adapt it to the evolving global context. Possible rules on the role and responsibilities of online platforms should be explored as well as rules for all economic operators in the digital sector. The Digital Services Act expected before the end of the year will aim to define concrete measures on these issues.

Regarding trade matters, EU leaders reiterated their call for a reformed system of global economic governance based on a free trade agenda with the WTO at its core, while protecting the EU from unfair and abusive practices and ensuring reciprocity. They also called for more progress on ongoing legislative initiatives such as the Enforcement Regulation and the International Procurement Instrument, while also developing instruments addressing the distortive effects of foreign subsidies.

At the same time, EU Heads of State or Government stressed the need to make European industry more sustainable, greener and more resilient so as to be able to compete in the global competition setting. To achieve this, the EU leaders called, more specifically, for action to ensure a level playing field, the development of new industrial alliances, increased assistance to overcome market failures and enable breakthrough innovation, and EU autonomy in the space sector.

Digital policy

EU leaders stressed that the coronavirus crisis had made digital transition even more pertinent and urgent, highlighting the political will to build a truly digital single market and make the EU digitally sovereign. They agreed to earmark at least 20 % of the recovery and resilience facility under the recovery package for digital transition, including for SMEs. EU leaders also took stock of recent developments and action with regard to the data economy, cloud services, 5G deployment and the building of a framework for secure, trustworthy and ethical artificial intelligence systems.

External relations Eastern Mediterranean

Noting the EU’s strategic interest in a stable and secure environment in the eastern Mediterranean, EU leaders devoted much attention to the situation in the region, bringing to the table an offer of dialogue and cooperation with Turkey. While welcoming the recent de-escalation efforts and the renewal of dialogue between Greece and Turkey, the European Council reiterated its solidarity with Greece and Cyprus, stressing that their ‘sovereign rights’ needed to be respected. It also called for a swift resumption of talks under the auspices of the UN for the settlement of the Cyprus issue.

When it came to relations with Turkey, provided the latter pursued dialogue, EU leaders committed to ‘launch a positive political EU-Turkey agenda’ focused on ‘modernisation of the Customs Union’, trade, and cooperation in the field of migration on the basis of the 2016 EU-Turkey Statement. The Presidents of the European Council and Commission, Charles Michel and Ursula von der Leyen, supported by the High Representative/Vice-President, Josep Borrell, were tasked with developing a proposal for a renewed EU-Turkey agenda. However, as underlined by the European Council, were the situation in the eastern Mediterranean to deteriorate again, the EU would use all available instruments, including restrictive measures (sanctions) and the reduction or interruption of economic relations and financial aid, in accordance with Article 215 TFEU. EU leaders also proposed to organise a multilateral conference on the eastern Mediterranean, but its framework and timetable have still to be determined.

Turkey has increasingly been using its key geo-strategic position in an assertive way, through active involvement in conflicts in its neighbourhood. This is currently the case in Libya, Syria and Nagorno-Karabakh. French President Emmanuel Macron stressed that the EU needed a neighbourhood policy able to address the challenges posed by both Turkey and Russia, and that EU leaders should continue to discuss and shape the EU’s strategic vision.

Main message of the Parliament’s President: David Sassoli expressed the Parliament’s solidarity with Greece and Cyprus and stressed that the ‘EU must uphold their sovereign rights’. He underlined that a ‘lasting settlement’ in the eastern Mediterranean could only be reached through dialogue.

EU-China relations

The debate on Turkey overshadowed the debate on China completely, reducing it to a stock-taking exercise. EU leaders were informed of the outcome of the 14 September 2020 quadrilateral meeting with China. Conclusions were, as confirmed by Mr Michel, adopted without debate. The European Council ‘welcomed’ the signing of the agreement on geographical indications and reaffirmed the goal of finalising negotiations on ‘an ambitious EU-China comprehensive investment agreement’ by the end of 2020, provided pending issues are overcome. EU leaders called on China to engage in ‘negotiations on industrial subsidies at the WTO’ and to support global efforts to respond to the pandemic. When it came to the fight against climate change, an area where the EU and China can cooperate closely, EU leaders ‘welcomed’ China’s commitment to increase its level of ambition so as to achieve climate neutrality by 2060. The conclusions stressed however that human rights abuses in China and the situation in Hong Kong remained a matter of serious concern. They also confirmed the EU’s attachment to the joint communication, ‘EU-China: A Strategic Outlook’, not formally endorsed by the EU leaders when first presented in March 2019. Recognising this communication as a common working tool is a first significant step towards a common approach on China, as called for by several EU leaders, including Emmanuel Macron, and the Prime Minister of Estonia, Jüri Ratas.

Main message of the Parliament’s President: David Sassoli expressed concern on human rights abuses and called for ‘a level playing-field for free and fair trade’.

Belarus

EU leaders once again converged in their assessment of the situation in Belarus and invited the Commission to prepare ‘a comprehensive plan of economic support for democratic Belarus’. They gave the green light to restrictive measures against 40 individuals who have contributed to electoral fraud and post-election repression; the Council subsequently adopted the list by written procedure. The list does not yet include Alexander Lukashenko. French President Emmanuel Macron spoke of an ‘assumed choice’, which could open the path to mediation under the auspices of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).

Main message of the Parliament’s President: David Sassoli urged the EU leaders to stand by EU values and to place sanctions on those responsible for electoral fraud and repression in Belarus.

Nagorno-Karabakh

EU leaders discussed the recent escalation of violence in Nagorno-Karabakh, inviting parties to cease hostilities and to work towards ‘the peaceful settlement of the conflict’. They expressed their support for the OSCE Minsk Group – comprising France, Russia and the US – which earlier in the day had called on Armenia and Azerbaijan to resume negotiations ‘in good faith’.

Main message of Parliament’s President: David Sassoli conveyed his condolences to the families of victims and called for the cessation of hostilities.

Alexei Navalny

The European Council condemned the attempt made to assassinate Alexei Navalny, as well as the use to that end of ‘a military chemical nerve agent from the “Novichok” group’. It pointed out that the use of chemical weapons constituted a breach of international law and called on Russia to cooperate fully with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. EU leaders agreed to return to the Navalny case at their upcoming summit on 15 and 16 October.

Main message of the Parliament’s President: David Sassoli called for ‘impartial international investigation’ into Russia’s violations of the international chemical weapons regime.

Read this briefing on ‘Outcome of the special European Council meeting, 1-2 October 2020‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Gisela Grieger,

© alexlmx / Adobe Stock

On 21 April 2018, the EU and Mexico reached an agreement in principle on a modernised trade pillar of the EU-Mexico Economic Partnership, Political Coordination and Cooperation Agreement, also known as the Global Agreement, in force since 2000. On 28 April 2020, negotiations were formally concluded after the only outstanding item – EU access to sub‑federal public procurement contracts in Mexico – was agreed upon.

The trade pillar of the Global Agreement was the first trade liberalisation agreement the EU concluded with a Latin American country. It has contributed to a significant increase in EU‑Mexico trade in services and industrial goods. However, it has become outdated, as both parties have entered into a wide range of preferential trade agreements with state-of-the-art provisions reflecting new developments in trade and investment policies. Removing non-tariff barriers to trade, and further liberalising trade in agricultural goods would allow the EU and Mexico to enhance their competitive edge in each other’s markets.

After the trade pillar’s legal scrutiny and translation, it will become part of a three-pronged Global Agreement that will also contain revamped political dialogue and cooperation pillars and will be signed by the Council of the EU and its Mexican counterpart. The new Global Agreement will subsequently be submitted to the European Parliament for its consent.

Economic Partnership, Political Coordination and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the United Mexican States, of the other part Committee responsible: International Trade (INTA) Rapporteur: Inmaculada Rodríguez-Piñero Fernández (S&D, Spain)

 

Written by Nicole Scholz (1st edition),

© Julien Eichinger / Adobe Stock

On 28 May 2020, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a regulation on a new health programme (EU4Health) for 2021 to 2027. Announced as part of the Next Generation EU (NGEU) recovery instrument, according to the Commission the EU4Health programme is intended to boost the EU’s preparedness for major cross-border health threats and improve health systems resilience.

Under the proposal, EU4Health would be a stand-alone, dedicated funding programme with a budget of €10.4 billion (in current prices). However, during the ongoing negotiations on the EU’s next multiannual financial framework (MFF) for the 2021-2027 period and NGEU, the budget for EU4Health has been reviewed downwards compared with what was originally proposed. According to the 21 July 2020 European Council conclusions, the programme will be allocated €1.7 billion.

Stakeholders broadly welcome the proposal, but generally regret the European Council’s reduction of the financial envelope allocated to it. In a July 2020 resolution on the European Council conclusions, Parliament criticised the proposed cuts to EU4Health. In Parliament, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) is responsible for the file. The rapporteur’s June 2020 draft report proposes several amendments to the Commission proposal. ENVI Members tabled further amendments in July. The committee is expected to vote on the report in October.

In the Council, the proposal is being examined at the level of the working party on public health.

Versions

• EU4Health programme

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of a Programme for the Union’s action in the field of health – for the period 2021-2027 and repealing Regulation (EU) No 282/2014 (‘EU4Health Programme’) Committee responsible: Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) COM(2020) 405
28.5.2020 Rapporteur: Cristian-Silviu Buşoi (EPP, Romania) 2020/0102 (COD) Shadow rapporteurs: Sara Cerdas (S&D, Portugal)
Véronique Trillet-Lenoir (Renew Europe, France)
Luisa Regimenti (ID, Italy)
Michèle Rivasi (Greens/EFA, France)
Joanna Kopcińska (ECR, Poland)
Kateřina Konečná (GUE/NGL, Czechia) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Adoption of report in committee

Written by Christiaan van Lierop.

This year’s European Week of Regions and Cities will truly be like no other. Not only will the event be taking place online due to local Coronavirus restrictions but it will also extend over three consecutive weeks for the first time ever in the event’s history. Each week will focus on a different headline theme, covering in turn Empowering Citizens, Cohesion and Cooperation, and Green Europe, with EWRC 2020 expected to provide the usual rich forum for discussion and debate.

But of course it’s not just this year’s special circumstances that makes this event so unique. After all, the world’s largest annual gathering of regional movers and shakers is always going to attract attention, with some of the biggest names in regional policymaking joining the party this year, albeit from the comfort of their own living room. And while the only face-to-face meetings this year may be taking part through the prism of a computer screen, the discussions will be no less passionate for all that. Against the backdrop of the Coronavirus crisis and with negotiations on the post-2020 cohesion policy framework in full swing, there will certainly be no shortage of things for this year’s participants to talk about, with the event providing local and regional stakeholders with a unique opportunity to share their experiences on the front line.

As in the past, EPRS has also published a Topical Digest to tie in with the event. Prepared specially for the 2020 EWRC, the publication showcases a selection of briefings published by the European Parliament on many of the key topics up for debate at the EWRC, such as the Just Transition, cross-border regional healthcare or digital democracy among many others. And although our special information stand has gone virtual this year, visitors will still be able to visit it online to find out more about the EPRS’ research activities, and download a selection of our specialist publications on regional policy.

But there’s much more to our involvement in this year’s event than just counting clicks on our virtual stand. EPRS will once again be organising a workshop on research as part of the EURegions Week College, which replaces the Master Class of past years. Unlike previous years, however, this year’s workshop will be open to all not just to students and early career researchers – and we are thrilled to have the opportunity to present our work to a wider audience. The workshop will show participants how EPRS supports the work of the European Parliament during the policy making process, and consider how closer links may be established between researchers in the academic world and policy-makers in the EU institutions.

Far from talking to an empty computer screen, we will also be asking participants to get actively involved in the discussions. As ever, we want to hear what they have to say – so we too can learn from the event. At EPRS, we understand that ‘Empowering through knowledge’, far from being just our motto, is in reality a two-way process.

Written by Ionel Zamfir,

Seventy-five years after the 24 October 1945 ratification of the United Nations (UN) Charter, the UN remains at the heart of the multilateral system. However, multilateralism today faces some serious challenges. To take stock of the UN’s current role as well as to discuss the way forward and the EU’s role in the organisation, EPRS organised a discussion on 23 September 2020, gathering diverse viewpoints in a virtual event under the title ‘The United Nations at 75: What has the multilateral system achieved and where is it going?’

The event took place shortly after the 75th UN General Assembly Session opened in New York on 21 September, in an unusual setting marked by the coronavirus crisis, as vividly reported directly from New York by Alexandre Stutzmann, special adviser to the President of the UN General Assembly and former European Parliament official. This year, pre-recorded interventions replaced the usual live speeches given in New York by numerous Heads of State each year in September. A high-level event took place on 21 September to mark the UN 75th anniversary and a forward-looking political declaration was adopted.

Soraya Rodríguez Ramos (Renew, Spain), Member of the European Parliament and Rapporteur for the future EP report on EU priorities at the 75th UN General Assembly, opened the discussion, stressing the importance of multilateralism in today’s hostile environment. According to Rodríguez Ramos, the coronavirus crisis has shown that a unilateral response is not the way forward; global governance and international solidary and cooperation are more needed than ever before. It is necessary to revitalise multilateralism, with the UN at its core. We need to find common solutions to tackle the new challenges of today that include, first of all, climate change, but also biodiversity loss, as well as persistent problems that have become more acute because of coronavirus crisis: poverty and hunger, lack of drinking water, violence and discrimination against women and girls.

European Parliament Vice-President Fabio Massimo Castaldo (NI, Italy) highlighted that, in its 75 years of history, the UN has shaped the world for the better, but the growing challenges of today are different from those envisaged by UN founders. More international cooperation is needed to tackle climate change, migration, poverty, inequality, and cybersecurity threats. Castaldo urged the UN to go back to the people, considering that reports of multilateralism’s demise are greatly exaggerated. He also highlighted the EU’s role in the UN: The Union has been able to make a difference through diplomacy and mediation for example.

Alexandre Stutzmann gave a detailed picture of the UN actions to mark its anniversary, stressing the efforts to reach out to ordinary people and particularly to young persons. He talked about the specificity of this year’s UN General Assembly Session, with much needed direct diplomatic interaction severely curtailed by the crisis. He detailed the high-level event marking the UN anniversary, outlining the complexities of the intergovernmental drafting process that ushered in the political declaration adopted on that occasion.

Barbara Pesce-Monteiro, director of the UN/UN Development Programme office in Brussels, also talked about the UN public campaign organised on its 75th anniversary and its results, which will feed into potential reforms. Pesce‑Monteiro further stressed that the current health crisis, with growing inequality and a particularly hard impact on women, illustrates the need for global solidarity, as does the climate crisis. In response to this, she stressed the need to continue to implement the Sustainable Development Goals as the only effective approach to tackle today’s strongly interrelated challenges. In common with the other speakers, Pesce‑Monteiro also acknowledged that the UN has to change, and welcomed EU support for the organisation.

Professor Jan Wouters reaffirmed the need to reform the UN, particularly its Security Council, which is not prepared to deal with the challenges of the future – in the next 25 or even 75 years. He warned that the current outlook for such reforms does not look at all promising: real drivers of reform are weak, and the vested interests of the current permanent members are a serious obstacle. He described the current crisis as the first global crisis without global leadership (a ‘G0 crisis’). This is due to the United States’ retreat from the global scene – the country whose leadership has traditionally been vital for shaping global institutions. A reinvigorated EU leadership with cross-regional support from like-minded countries can help fill this vacuum. Finally, Wouters encouraged reflection on the intergovernmental nature of the UN system in today’s globalised world, in which non-state actors, including regional international organisations, such as the European Union, play an increasingly powerful role.

To conclude, Ionel Zamfir, policy analyst at the EPRS, presented the findings of a recently published analysis on the EU’s role in the United Nations system, according to which the EU can be considered a credible, coherent and active player in the UN system. Its involvement is multidimensional, going beyond its observer role, including the EU’s participation in multilateral treaties and in the negotiations leading to these, its financial contributions, as well as the long-term, complex and mutually beneficial partnerships it has established with various entities in the UN system. Zamfir warned that one of the biggest challenges facing the UN today is to remain faithful to its fundamental principles, such as those enshrined in its founding documents, particularly with respect to universal human rights, which are under increasing threat with the rise of the authoritarianism in the world.

Click to view slideshow.

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© hanohiki / Adobe Stock

According to analysts and politicians, China’s increasingly autocratic domestic stance and assertive foreign policy are damaging its relations with the European Union. No substantial agreement was achieved at a virtual EU-China summit on 14 September, despite years of negotiations on many issues, not least on trade and investment. ‘For the EU, China is simultaneously (in different policy areas) a cooperation partner, a negotiation partner, an economic competitor and a systemic rival,’ the EU External Action Service’s background paper says.

Formally, the EU and China have been strategic partners since 2003 – a partnership that was broadened five years ago by the EU-China 2020 Strategic Agenda for Cooperation. However, more recently, EU officials and politicians have been expressing increasing concerns over China’s economic expansionism and human rights violations. The current coronavirus pandemic and developments in Hong Kong have had a marked negative impacted on EU-China relations.

This note offers links to recent commentaries, studies and reports from major international think tanks on China, its ties with the EU and related issues.

EU-China

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

Towards tougher bilateral relations between EU and China
Institut français des relations internationales, September 2020

The new China consensus: How Europe is growing wary of Beijing
European Council on Foreign Relations, September 2020

The EU-China relationship
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, September 2020

Europe, the US and China: A love-hate triangle?
Centre for European Reform, September 2020

It’s time for NATO and the EU to have a serious conversation about China
Friends of Europe, September 2020

EU-China relations: State of the art and new perspectives
Instituto Affari Internazionali, September 2020

Relocating production from China to Central Europe? Not so fast!
Bruegel, September 2020

Europe’s manoeuvring on 5G technology: The case of Italy
Instituto Affari Internazionali, September 2020

The missing partnership: The United States, Europe, and China’s economic challenge
German Marshall Fund, September 2020

China and the EU in the Western Balkans A zero-sum game?
Clingendael, August 2020

Towards strategic autonomy: The role of the EU in the growing China-USA rivalry
Egmont, July 2020

EU-China trade and investment: Views from East and West
Friends of Europe, July 2020

Europe’s China problem: Investment screening and state aid
Bruegel, July 2020

The pandemic, power rivalries and the EU
Friends of Europe, July 2020

Europe’s digital sovereignty: From rulemaker to superpower in the age of US-China rivalry
European Council on Foreign Relations, July 2020

The meaning of systemic rivalry: Europe and China beyond the pandemic
European Council on Foreign Relations, May 2020

Hong Kong calls: Can Europe respond?
Carnegie Europe, May 2020

Other studies and commentaries

China’s ‘dual circulation’ plan is bad news for others’ exports
Bruegel, September 2020

The cacophony of powers: International politics in the 2020s
Instituto Affari Internazionali, September 2020

Europe’s global test
Carnegie Europe, September 2020

The race for critical minerals in an era of geopolitical realignments
Instituto Affari Internazionali, September 2020

How US-China tensions could hamper development efforts
Brookings Institution, September 2020

Lessons from the Trump administration’s policy experiment on China
Brookings Institution, September 2020

China’s structural power and the fate of the BCIM economic corridor
Instituto Affari Internazionali, September 2020

China’s system of oppression in Xinjiang: How it developed and how to curb it
Brookings Institution, September 2020

Will the U.S. stance on Chinese telecom equipment change?
European Centre for International Political Economy, September 2020

Returning to the shadows: China, Pakistan, and the fate of CPEC
German Marshall Fund, September 2020

An answer to aggression: How to push back against Beijing
German Marshall Fund, September 2020

The Sino-Russian normative partnership in action
European Union Institute for Security Studies, August 2020

US-China phase one tracker: China’s purchases of US goods
Peterson Institute for International Economics, August 2020

Differentiated cooperation in European Foreign Policy: The challenge of coherence
European Policy Centre, August 2020

Fewer Chinese investments in the US are raising national security concerns
Peterson Institute for International Economics, August 2020

Debunking the myth of ‘debt-trap diplomacy’: How recipient countries shape China’s Belt and Road Initiative
Chatham House, August 2020

Arms and influence? Chinese arms transfers to Africa in context
Peterson Institute for International Economics, July 2020

How ‘democratic security’ can protect Europe from a rising China
German Council on Foreign Relations, July 2020

Despite the rhetoric, US-China financial decoupling is not happening
Peterson Institute for International Economics, July 2020

Mask wars: China’s exports of medical goods in times of Covid-19
Kiel Institute for the World Economy, July 2020

Masks off: Chinese coronavirus assistance in Europe
German Marshall Fund, July 2020

Hong Kong: The second hand-over
Fondation pour l’innovation politique, July 2020

European fear of ‘missing out’ and narratives on China in Africa
European Think Tank Group, July 2020

China has blown its historic opportunity
Peterson Institute for International Economics, July 2020

China has an unfair advantage in the EU Market: What can be done to level the playing field?
Bruegel, July 2020

China’s targeted corporate shopping spree to continue, especially in Europe
Bruegel, July 2020

China and the Trans-Pacific Partnership: In or out?
Peterson Institute for International Economics, June 2020

Australia’s strategic shift to the United States infuriates China
Carnegie Europe, June 2020

China’s focus remains firmly fixed on domestic problems
Chatham House, June 2020

East Asia decouples from the United States: Trade war, Covid-19, and East Asia’s new trade blocs
Peterson Institute for International Economics, June 2020

China’s Indian Ocean ambitions: Investment, influence, and military advantage
Brookings Institution, June 2020

Reading tea leaves from China’s two sessions: Large monetary and fiscal stimulus and still no growth guarantee
Bruegel, May 2020

How images frame China’s role in African development
Chatham House, May 2020

Read this briefing on ‘China: From partner to rival’ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Clare Ferguson,

© Bernard Rouffignac / European Union, EP

Despite Parliament’s efforts to return to Strasbourg for its plenary sessions, the first session of October will again take place in Brussels, to avoid hundreds of people travelling to France during the coronavirus pandemic. The Covid‑19 emergency has also focused the agenda on efforts to ensure the health of the EU economy, particularly its financial markets.

A key moment in this session, however, will undoubtedly be the vote on Wednesday morning following the 2 October hearings concerning two changes in European Commission portfolios in a reorganisation made necessary following the former Trade Commissioner’s resignation. The International Trade Committee will hear Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis, nominated to take over the Trade portfolio, and the Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) committee will hear Mairead McGuinness, Commissioner-designate for Financial Stability, Financial Services and the Capital Markets Union.

As reflected in the importance given to the financial portfolio, the vital health of the EU financial market is another focus of the session. Council and Commission will make statements on the role of the European Supervisory Authorities in the Wirecard scandal on Wednesday afternoon, followed by a joint debate on financial services. With the effects of coronavirus on the business world as a backdrop, Parliament will focus on proposals for further development of the capital markets union, particularly to offer small businesses and individual investors a wider range of investment options and help drive the recovery. As the potentially misleading statements Wirecard made to its investors illustrate, coordinated supervisory powers could help to protect smaller businesses and investors. The ECON committee report tabled proposes to remove barriers to investment; set up an EU framework for digital finance that provides high data protection and privacy standards (and challenges the dominance of large technology companies); promote financial literacy; and for the EU to consider equivalence decisions for suitable third-country markets. Reflecting the rapidly changing nature of the financial markets, Members will then debate an ECON committee legislative-initiative report with recommendations to the European Commission on regulating digital finance. The report takes a closer look at the emerging risks in crypto-assets and the regulatory and supervisory challenges. Fintech provides unprecedented opportunities for both a more efficient and transparent financial sector – and for financial criminals to escape detection. The ECON committee would like the European Commission to propose comprehensive supervisory measures to regulate crypto-assets, such as Bitcoin, to boost cyber-resilience in view of the vulnerability of such virtual assets to cyber-attack, as well as to improve the management of associated data. One new Fintech solution, crowdfunding, is a growing way for innovative small companies to obtain access to finance. The digital nature of crowdfunding service platforms also lends itself well to cross-border calls for finance, opening up the possibilities for investors and companies alike. However, the platforms also require careful EU-wide regulation to ensure they are managed prudently and that investors are protected. On Monday evening, Members will vote on ECON committee reports at second reading on a regulation on European crowdfunding service providers (ECSP) for business and related changes to the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II). The texts include measures to authorise, supervise and set operational and organisational requirements for crowdfunding platforms, and focus on protecting investors. The Commission will also make a statement on the fight against money laundering, following the release of the FinCEN files, on Thursday morning.

However, the need for careful husbandry of financial resources in such difficult times is also greatly reinforcing the desire for good financial management of EU funding. On Monday evening, Members will hear Council and Commission statements on a possible rule of law conditionality in the framework of the multiannual financial framework negotiations, to link EU funding more closely to the respect of common EU values and will debate a legislative-initiative report on establishment of an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights.

The coronavirus pandemic also continues to have financial consequences for EU policy, and while Parliament has proposed new resources to fund the recovery, the budget for existing EU activities requires some adjustment. On Monday evening, Members will vote on amending budget No 7/2020, which updates the revenue side of the current EU budget, in view of the negative impact of coronavirus on the EU economic outlook, as well as other technical issues. Although income from value added tax and gross national income is falling as a result of the economic climate, and negative exchange rates have also had an impact, more positively, the amounts available from paid-up fines and penalties has increased. An update of the coronavirus measures is also expected to feature during the postponed European Council meeting of 1‑2 October, the conclusions of which Members will debate on Tuesday morning, as well as preparation of the next meeting, currently scheduled for 15‑16 October 2020.

One file that remains blocked in Council is the proposed directive to ensure gender balance on company boards, agreed by Parliament in 2013. Proven to improve the health, value and transparency of companies, Parliament has long supported the measures and called for progress on the file as recently as January 2020. Members will discuss the current state of play on Monday evening.

Turning to the EU’s ambition to achieve EU climate neutrality by 2050, a debate on Tuesday afternoon will discuss the Commission’s proposal for a new European Climate Law. While the Commission is proposing a 55 % reduction in EU GHG emissions by 2030, Parliament’s Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Committee (ENVI) is calling for greater ambition with an increased reduction target of 60 %. The ENVI committee calls for net-zero emissions by 2050 at the latest in the EU and in each Member State, and negative emissions after 2050. The vote on this file will determine Parliament’s position for trilogue negotiations once the Council adopts its position. A vital resource in the fight against climate change, for the European ecosystem and to rural economies, forests and woods cover almost half of the EU’s land surface. However, to date the EU has no policy on forests and the forestry sector, meaning that management of this precious resource is somewhat fragmented. Members will debate a report on Tuesday afternoon on the way forward for a European forest strategy. The strategy could pave the way for an ambitious approach to sustainable forest management that bridges the gap between national forest policies and EU objectives relating to forests, such as the European Green Deal and the 2030 biodiversity strategy

Written by Elena Lazarou and Tania Lațici,

© Rawf8 / Adobe Stock

Permanent structured cooperation (PESCO) was launched in December 2017 with the participation of 25 EU Member States. It operates on the basis of concrete projects and binding commitments, several of which are geared towards strengthening the EU defence sector. PESCO members are committed to increasing national defence budgets and defence investment expenditure, and to investing more in defence research and technology. In addition, they have pledged to develop and provide ‘strategically relevant’ defence capabilities and to act jointly and make use of the financial and practical support provided by the European Defence Fund. Finally, they are committed to contributing to projects that boost the European defence industry and the European defence technological and industrial base.

Discussions on long-awaited rules on third-country participation in PESCO projects are ongoing in September 2020. A strategic review of PESCO should take place by the end of 2020. The review will assess PESCO’s strengths and weaknesses and it is expected to provide new information aimed at improving the implementation and development of new EU defence capabilities and capacities through PESCO. Critics argue that the end goal of PESCO projects has still to be contextualised within the wider debate on an EU strategic culture and a concrete vision about the ambition of EU security and defence policy. They also emphasise the need to align PESCO priorities with those identified by parallel EU defence initiatives, as well as with the capability needs of the EU.

The European Parliament is expected to vote on a resolution on PESCO in October 2020.

PESCO projects, participants and EDIDP funding

Read the complete briefing on ‘PESCO: Ahead of the strategic review‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘PESCO: Ahead of the strategic review’ on YouTube.

Written by Marie-Laure Augère-Granier,

© Simone van den Berg / Adobe Stock

The 150 million pigs reared across the EU represent the largest livestock category before that of bovines, and the EU pig meat sector alone accounts for nearly half of total EU meat production. Germany, Spain and France contribute more than half of the total amount of pig meat produced in the EU. The sector is highly diverse, with huge differences in rearing methods and farm sizes across the Member States: from backyard farming to industrial installations with thousands of animals.

Within the common agricultural policy (CAP), the pig meat sector is covered by the common organisation of markets regulating trade and providing support in the event of a sectoral crisis. Farmers can also receive rural development funding under the second pillar of the CAP, for example, to make necessary investments on their farms.

A large number of EU legislative acts apply to this sector, covering various aspects of pig farming: environmental protection, food safety and public health, organic production, animal health and welfare. However, evidence shows a lack of compliance with EU regulations on the welfare of pigs and the persistence of harmful routine practices. Another challenge is the air, soil and water pollution caused by intensive pig farming, which takes a heavy toll on the environment.

The EU is currently the world’s top exporter of pig meat products and its exports have been boosted by the fall in production in Asia, where African swine fever is decimating millions of animals. Increased demand for EU pork pushed prices to a peak in early 2020.

In the coming years, the pig production sector may be impacted by the evolution of the policy environment: negotiations on a new CAP are ongoing and the recently published Green Deal initiative and Farm to Fork strategy, both of which promote greener and more sustainable agriculture and food systems, mention the future revision of legislation relevant to the pig sector, including on animal welfare.

Read the complete briefing on ‘The EU pig meat sector‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘The EU pig meat sector’ on YouTube.