European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

Written by Enrico D’Ambrogio with Minjoo Yang ,

© xtock / Adobe Stock

North Korea and South Korea have been on different paths since World War II. The North has remained isolated and poor, its regime inspired by Soviet structures, with a centrally planned economy. The South, meanwhile, after alternating periods of autocratic and democratic rule, made a clear choice at the end of the 1980s in favour of democracy and a market economy, a choice that has led the country to success in several sectors.

North and South Korea are still technically at war, as the military conflict of 1950-1953 ended with an armistice that was never followed by a peace treaty. There are 28 500 US (United States) soldiers stationed in South Korea, which signed a Mutual Defence Treaty with Washington in 1953. There have been frequent tensions over the past 70 years, and North Korea has become a de facto nuclear power since the 2000s, prompting international sanctions.

Early in 2018 a detente raised hopes of peace. North Korean leader Kim Jong-un met with US President Donald Trump and South Korean President Moon Jae-in, but the summits have led neither to the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula, nor to the easing of sanctions against the North.

Pyongyang’s frustration provoked new tensions in the region in June 2020, when the North, in a symbolic move, destroyed the liaison office in the border area, the de facto embassy of the two Koreas. But Kim’s options seem limited at present, and there is little chance of progress until after the US presidential elections. Meanwhile, Moon Jae-in has invested much political capital in the Korean peace process, and is willing to make further moves before the end of his mandate in 2022.

The EU has traditionally maintained a policy of critical engagement towards North Korea, upholding the international non-proliferation regime and supporting a lasting reduction in tensions on the peninsula. The EU and South Korea are strategic partners. During the 30 June 2020 EU–South Korea summit, the EU reaffirmed its support for Seoul’s efforts to engage with the North to achieve peace and prosperity on the peninsula.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Korean peninsula: State of play – Further uncertainty follows period of hope‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Gisela Grieger,

© Scott Maxwell / Adobe Stock

On 12 December 2019, the European Commission adopted a proposal to amend Regulation (EU) No 654/2014 concerning the exercise of the EU’s rights for the application and enforcement of international trade rules (‘the Enforcement Regulation’) of 15 May 2014. The Enforcement Regulation enables the EU to suspend or withdraw concessions or other obligations under international trade agreements in order to respond to breaches by third countries of international trade rules that affect the EU’s commercial interests.

The proposed amendments would enable the EU to impose counter-measures in situations where EU trade partners violate international trade rules and block the dispute settlement procedures included in multilateral, regional and bilateral trade agreements, thus preventing the EU from obtaining final binding rulings in its favour. The latter are required under the current EU regulation to enforce international trade rules.

As the Council adopted its negotiating position on 8 April 2020 and the Committee on International Trade (INTA) of the European Parliament adopted its negotiating position on 6 July 2020, trilogue negotiations can now be launched as the next step in the legislative process.

Versions

• July 2020:  ‘EU international procurement instrument‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 654/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the exercise of the Union’s rights for the application and enforcement of international trade rules Committee responsible: International Trade (INTA) COM(2019) 623 Rapporteur: Marie-Pierre Vedrenne (Renew Europe, France) 12.12.2019 Shadow rapporteurs: Anna-Michelle Asimakopoulou (EPP, Greece)
Bernd Lange (S&D, Germany)
Reinhard Bütikofer (Greens/EFA, Germany)
Emmanouil Fragkos (ECR, Greece)
Helmut Scholz (GUE/NGL, Germany) 2019/0273 (COD)

Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Trilogue negotiations

Written by Ionel Zamfir with Tessa Fardel,

© Nuthawut / Adobe Stock

The coronavirus has taken a heavy toll on electoral processes around the world, with many elections being postponed because of emergency situations. Ideally, postponing elections should involve a sensible balancing act between the democratic imperative, enshrined in international law and national constitutions, to hold regular elections, and public health requirements restricting large gatherings and minimising close contact between people.

While some countries have decided to go ahead with elections, most countries with elections scheduled since the beginning of March have postponed them. Among those that have held elections during the pandemic, South Korea has emerged as a model for having organised a highly successful electoral process, while protecting the health of its population. Others, such as Burundi, have set a negative standard, ignoring health risks putting both population and politicians in peril.

Postponing elections as part of the policy response to the crisis ideally requires a broad political consensus. However, rescheduling has proven divisive in many cases. Those in power have often been accused by the opposition and other critics of trying to reshape the calendar to their own advantage, either by lifting lockdowns too early to allow for the restart of the electoral process (such as in Serbia − the first European country to hold parliamentary elections after the crisis) or by prolonging transitional situations unnecessarily (such as in Bolivia, which has an interim president).

The crisis provides a unique opportunity for electoral reform. Extending opportunities for early and remote voting has been seen as a way to reduce risk. However, much caution is needed, particularly as regards remote online voting, which involves either limitations of the right to voting secrecy or serious and still unmanageable cyber-risks.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Impact of the pandemic on elections around the world: From safety concerns to political crises‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© mantinov / Adobe Stock

The spread of the coronavirus pandemic is reshaping the world economy and politics. Analysts and politicians argue that the extent of changes will depend of the persistence of the crisis and the ability of global powers to cooperate in efforts to contain and control it. In Europe, where containment rules have already been eased in many countries, governments and citizens fear a second wave of the pandemic, especially given that infection rates are again slowly rising in certain regions. Worldwide, populations in conflict-zones find themselves in an especially precarious situation.

This note offers links to recent commentaries and reports from international think tanks on coronavirus and related issues. Earlier publications on the coronavirus can be found in the previous item in this series, published by EPRS on 10 July.

Germany’s corona presidency: Germany’s leadership role and European partners’ expectations
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, July 2020

From reaction to action: How the EU can step up its role in global pandemics
European Policy Centre, July 2020

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

In sickness and in health: European cooperation during the coronavirus crisis
European Council on Foreign Relations, July 2020

Trump, the coronavirus, and the world economy
German Marshall Fund, July 2020

Global democracy and Covid-19: Upgrading international support
Carnegie Europe, July 2020

The impact economy: Balancing profit and impact
Bruegel, July 2020

Going beyond the Single Market: Why Europe must become a Single Economic Territory (SET)
European Policy Centre, July 2020

How is Covid-19 affecting House oversight efforts?
Brookings Institution, July 2020

Deutschlands CoronaPräsidentschaft Erwartungen der europäischen Partner an die deutsche Führungsrolle
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, July 2020

Is evaluating Covid-19 about the WHO or country responses?
Chatham House, July 2020

Government-guaranteed bank lending: Beyond the headline numbers
Bruegel, July 2020

The EU budget as an opportunity in the crisis: The EU Commission proposal for a new financial framework and a reconstruction fund
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, July 2020

Economic meltdown in the Middle East: How Europe can soften the impact
European Council on Foreign Relations, July 2020

Credible emerging market central banks could embrace quantitative easing to fight Covid-19
Bruegel, July 2020

ESG resilience during the Covid crisis: Is green the new gold?
Centre for European Policy Studies, July 2020

Next generation EU: Shock absorber or larger, debt-financed EU budget?
Centre for European Policy Studies, July 2020

Instrumental solidarity: Hungary’s management of the coronavirus crisis
European Council on Foreign Relations, July 2020

Did we say ‘new own resources’ for the recovery fund?
Centre for European Policy Studies, July 2020

What does the World Health Organization do?
Council on Foreign Relations, July 2020

Supporting and restructuring the aviation ecosystem
Centre for European Policy Studies, July 2020

How can Europe reconcile privacy with Covid-19 track and tracing systems?
Friends of Europe, July 2020

Rethinking EU institutions’ rules of procedure after Covid-19
Egmont, July 2020

Covid-19: The hidden majority in India’s migration crisis
Chatham House, July 2020

Covid-19 job and income loss leading to more hunger and financial hardship
Brookings Institution, July 2020

Circulation et commercialisation de chloroquine en Afrique de l’Ouest: Une géopolitique du médicament à la lumière du COVID-19
Institut français des relations internationales, July 2020

How has Covid-19 impacted the war in Libya?
Friends of Europe, July 2020

Voting by mail in a pandemic: A state-by-state scorecard
Brookings Institution, July 2020

Key trade data points on the EU-27 pharmaceutical supply chain
European Centre for International Political Economy, July 2020

Czech Republic: Living with coronavirus
Chatham House, July 2020

Greece: Living with coronavirus
Chatham House, July 2020

Start of USMCA brings hope amid Covid-19 economic crisis
Atlantic Council, June 2020

Emergency powers, Covid-19 and the new challenge for human rights
Instituto Affari Internationali, June 2020

Cities on the frontline: Managing the coronavirus crisis
Barcelona Centre for International Affairs, June 2020

How the world has learned to grieve in a pandemic
Council on Foreign Relations, June 2020

Collateral easing with disciplinary dysfunction? On the limitations of the ECB’s Covid-19 response
Foundation for European Progressive Studies, June 2020

Vorschläge für eine effiziente, europäische Bekämpfung von Pandemien: Juristische Aspekte im Gesundheitsbereich
Österreichische Gesellschaft Für Europapolitik

Policy coherence issues emerging from Covid-19 with a focus on healthcare supply chains
European Centre for Development Policy Management, June 2020

Read this briefing on ‘Coronavirus: An uncertain future‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Read all EPRS publications on the coronavirus outbreak

Written by Costica Dumbrava,

© Oleksandr Kotenko / Adobe Stock

All the EU Member States adopted emergency measures in an attempt to contain the spread of the coronavirus. These measures restricted a number of fundamental freedoms, including movement across and within national borders, access to education, freedom of association and, more broadly, freedom to engage in social and economic activities. Following a decrease in the number of coronavirus cases, most Member States have gradually begun to lift or ease these restrictions.

This briefing presents an overview of 10 key measures taken by the Member States in response to the pandemic. They relate to cross-border travel (controls at internal EU borders, entry bans affecting EU and non-EU citizens, and exit bans); movement and association (restrictions of movement in the country and bans on social gatherings); education and social activities (closure of educational institutions, shops and restaurants); and contact tracing.

This briefing tracks these key measures from 1 March to 30 June 2020 and presents their evolution in relation to the general evolution of the pandemic in each Member State, represented by the cumulative number of reported Covid-19 cases per 100 000 population in the previous 14 days.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Tracking key coronavirus restrictions on movement and social life‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Costica Dumbrava,

© Liliya / Adobe Stock

The key to tackling the coronavirus pandemic is a combination of safe and readily available vaccines that provide everyone with immunity, as well as effective treatments that work to cure the disease in all infected people. Short of this, the ongoing public health crisis requires a mix of non-pharmaceutical measures aimed at reducing the spread of the virus, including identifying and isolating cases, testing, contact tracing and broader containment measures.

With the number of Covid-19 cases in the EU falling steadily since the beginning of May, most Member States have begun to ease restrictions on free movement and social gatherings. However, lifting restrictions in the absence of vaccines and treatments requires enhanced monitoring measures, such as an expanded testing capacity and improved contact tracing, including through the use of appropriate digital technologies.

There is the hope that the impressive mobilisation of resources and expertise will soon lead to breakthroughs in the quest for safe vaccines and effective treatments for Covid-19. However, it may take a while before such therapeutics are made available to everyone that needs them. Beyond dealing with challenges relating to scientific knowledge and a cumbersome development process, there is a need to address questions regarding mass manufacturing and fair distribution. Given the uncertainties and challenges associated with Covid-19 therapeutics, it may be wise to moderate expectations in order to foster resilience and preserve public trust.

Expanding testing capacity and updating testing strategies to support disease monitoring at population level is crucial for minimising the risk of new outbreaks in the context of relaxing containment measures. Using antibody tests to monitor the disease is a promising avenue, though more evidence is needed to demonstrate the reliability of these tests, in particular given current knowledge gaps regarding people’s immunity to the virus. Moreover, linking antibody testing to relaxing restrictions for individuals, as suggested by the idea of establishing ‘immunity passports’, raises additional concerns about non-discrimination, fairness and mass surveillance.

Together with identifying and isolating new cases (through testing), the rapid and efficient tracing of people who have recently been in contact with infected people is essential for reducing the spread of the virus. Automating, at least partially, the laborious task of contact tracing with the help of contact-tracing apps has been advocated as a key measure to enable the gradual lifting of restrictions. The ongoing debate on contact-tracing apps in the EU seems to be converging towards a preference for voluntary contact-tracing apps that rely on proximity/bluetooth data (as opposed to location data) and comply with EU rules on data protection and privacy. The debate continues on the specific technical design of such apps (e.g. centralised versus decentralised systems), though the majority of initiatives in Member States seem to rely on decentralised systems. There are nevertheless a number of open questions regarding contact-tracing apps, in particular on their reliability, usability, data protection and privacy, epidemiological value and broader social implications.

There are very few certainties regarding the Covid-19 pandemic, but perhaps one certainty is that no isolated measure or silver-bullet solution is likely to solve all aspects of the crisis. A flexible and integrated strategy, in terms of complementary tools and measures, as well as a coordinated approach across the EU, will be crucial in enabling the gradual lifting of restrictions and a return to the (new) normal.

Read the complete in-depth analysis on ‘Lifting coronavirus restrictions: The role of therapeutics, testing, and contact-tracing apps‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Mihalis Kritikos,

© Shutterstock

While artificial intelligence (AI) applications are numerous, AI creates novel ethical challenges that threaten both users and non-users of the technology, including exacerbating existing inequalities and generating discrimination and bias. As AI ethics has become a point of discussion and analysis at local and international levels, policy-makers and AI developers are facing a series of questions: What can be done to minimise harm while maximising the benefits of AI solutions? How can we develop and use AI in a human-centric and trustworthy manner? How can we make sure that there is sufficient transparency and accountability in the way algorithms function and AI is used? Are traditional ethical frameworks and human rights legal instruments sufficient to address AI-specific challenges? Governments and intergovernmental organisations are responding to these questions by drafting AI-specific ethical standards and adopting ethical guidelines and principles.

Within this frame, STOA launched a study to map the ethical terrain in the field of AI, in terms of both ethical concerns and initiatives, and analyse the current body of principles and guidelines on ethical AI. ‘The ethics of artificial intelligence: Issues and initiatives’ was published in March 2020, was carried out by Eleanor Bird, Jasmin Fox-Skelly, Nicola Jenner, Ruth Larbey, Emma Weitkamp and Alan Winfield from the Science Communication Unit at the University of the West of England. The STOA Panel requested the study, following a proposal by STOA Chair, Eva Kaili (S&D, Greece). It examines the ethical implications, dilemmas, tensions and moral questions surrounding the development and deployment of AI and maps the full spectrum of ethical standards, guidelines and strategies produced by state and non-state actors worldwide.

The study begins by mapping the main ethical dilemmas and moral questions associated with the deployment of AI. Special focus is placed on the effects of AI on citizens’ fundamental human rights within society. It explores the potential impact of AI on the labour market and economy, sheds light on how different demographic groups might be affected, and addresses questions of inequality and the risk that AI will further concentrate power and wealth in the hands of the few. The study addresses issues related to privacy, human rights and dignity, as well as risks that AI will perpetuate the biases, intended or otherwise, of existing social systems or their creators. The analysis further explores the psychological impacts of AI related to dependency and deception. It also considers the potential impacts of AI on financial and legal systems – including civil and criminal law – including risks of manipulation and collusion, and questions relating to the use of AI in criminal activities. Large-scale deployment of AI could also have both positive and negative impacts on the environment.

Τhe study then performs a scoping review, by outlining all major ethical initiatives, summarising their focus and, where possible, identifying funding sources and the harms and concerns tackled by these initiatives. By examining a wide range of initiatives, the study’s analysis reveals a growing consensus around the principles of AI accountability and auditability. Within the initiatives covered, a global convergence is emerging on the acknowledgment of the need for new standards that would detail measurable and testable levels of transparency so that systems can be objectively assessed for compliance. Particularly in situations where AI replaces human decision-making initiatives, the majority of the ethical statements adopted tend to agree that AI must be safe, trustworthy and reliable, and act with integrity. Throughout the ethical initiatives, there is also a general recognition of the need for greater public engagement and education with regard to the potential harms of AI. The initiatives suggest a range of ways in which this could be achieved. Such initiatives also pay particular attention to autonomous weapons systems, given their potential to seriously harm society.

Through the analysis of three case studies in the domains of healthcare robots, autonomous vehicles (AVs) and the use of AI in warfare and the potential for AI to be used in weapons, the authors highlight particular ethical risks associated with AI at various stages. Their analysis enriches the current ethical AI discourse through a comprehensive appraisal of the actual ethical challenges and moral dilemmas that emerge during the process of the development and deployment of AI applications. The study further discusses emerging AI ethics standards and regulations and examines all major national and international policy strategies on AI. It highlights not only the diversity and complexity of the ethical concerns arising from the development of AI, but also the variety of approaches to and understandings of ethics. The authors identify notable gaps in the context of the current AI ethics framework, including: the consideration of environmental impacts; mechanisms of fair benefit sharing; exploitation of workers; energy demands in the context of environmental and climate change; and the potential for AI-assisted financial crime.

Based on this analysis, the authors put forward a series of policy options that centre on the need for cost-benefit studies and life-cycle analyses, which include environmental externalities, for minimum acceptable reporting requirements and new retraining programmes, and for social and financial support for displaced workers. Of particular importance are suggestions: to declare that AI is not a private good, but instead should be available for the benefit of all; to focus on those most at risk of being left behind; to make worker inputs more transparent in the end-product; and to develop appropriate support structures and working conditions for precarious workers. The authors propose the development of new forms of technology assessment, placement of the burden of proof on the developer to demonstrate safety and public benefits, and creation of a single regulatory body providing prescriptive guidance to national regulators, which could help to eliminate incoherent and conflicting sets of standards and guidance.

Overall, the study provides a useful starting point for understanding the inherent diversity of current principles and guidelines for ethical AI and outlines the challenges ahead for the global community. By shedding light on under-represented ethical principles and detailing the most important similarities and differences found across the various ethical initiatives, the study can potentially help policy-makers to establish a common ground amidst a fragmented AI ethics landscape.

Read the full study and accompanying STOA Options Brief to find out more.

Written by Mihalis Kritikos,

There is no trade-off between privacy and health in the context of contact tracing applications as, without citizens’ trust, no technology can deliver the expected outcomes. That was the main conclusion reached in the frame of the online high-level roundtable organised by the Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA) on 7 July 2020. The last STOA event before the summer break brought together technology experts, privacy advocates, digital rights activists and representatives of the European Commission, the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) and the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT Digital) in a debate on ensuring the effective deployment of this technology without compromising our values. As several EU Member States have recently deployed tracing apps designed to prevent a second wave of infections, questions arise about the efficiency, accuracy and privacy-friendly character of this technology.

The event was a timely occasion to discuss whether digital contact tracing has the potential to become a critical component of our efforts to control the spread of Covid‑19. It was also an opportunity to devise informed strategies to exit lockdown restrictions safely, coming only a few days after Member States, with the support of the Commission, agreed on a set of technical specifications to ensure safe exchange of information between national contact tracing apps based on a decentralised architecture.

There was a consensus among the panellists that, although hundreds of coronavirus contact tracing mobile applications are under development worldwide and are beginning to be deployed in Europe, there is currently limited evidence to evaluate their effectiveness and impact. Additionally, their implementation raises privacy and stigmatisation concerns and questions about their accessibility, inclusivity, accuracy and security that need to be addressed in a proactive and step-wise manner. This means putting the necessary safeguards and standards in place that would ensure that European citizens trust this technology. The panellists also agreed that digital contact tracing provides policy-makers with a unique opportunity to deploy a technology that could be socially beneficial and valuable in epidemiological terms, if designed in an inclusive way and implemented under specific legal and ethical conditions. Participants agreed that it is the first time that privacy is a recognised design feature of a technology gradually being deployed across Europe.

The event was opened by STOA Chair and moderator of the event, Eva Kaili (S&D, Greece), who argued that contact tracing apps must respect users’ privacy, work across devices and operating systems, and add value to the epidemiological monitoring of the pandemic without creating risks of exclusion. A presentation followed of the European Commission’s initiatives in the field of digital contact tracing by Marco Marsella, Head of the ‘eHealth, Well-being, and Ageing’ Unit in the Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology (DG CONNECT) of the European Commission. Marsella highlighted that the Commission and the Member States cooperated on the technical and legal aspects of these apps from the very beginning, which was crucial for the shaping of an effective response and the development of a common EU toolbox. Diego Ciulli, public policy manager at Google, explained the Exposure Notifications System that Google and Apple created jointly to fight the pandemic through contact tracing. He emphasised that technology is only one tool to fight Covid‑19 and these apps can only complement manual contact tracing by guaranteeing safety and privacy in order to earn citizens’ trust. Professor Michael Backes, founding Director and CEO of the CISPA Helmholtz Center for Information Security, emphasised that Germany’s decentralised Corona Warn App, already downloaded by more than 15 million Germans, will clearly not on its own provide a panacea for the pandemic. However, it can enable earlier identification of new infections, helping to isolate infected people before they become contagious themselves. He argued in favour of privacy-by-design, and the interoperable and voluntary nature of these apps as key to their uptake and success. Christof Tchohl, Research Director at Research Institute/Red Cross Austria described the lessons learned in the deployment of Europe’s first contact tracing app. According to Tchohl, the Austrian Stopp Corona-App, launched in March 2020, faced a series of legal and technical challenges that led to its reprogramming to a more decentralised and privacy-friendly system. Leonardo Cervera Navas, Director of the Office of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) advocated an interoperable, pan-European approach towards contact tracing, which should empower citizens in this pandemic crisis rather than stigmatise them. He further emphasised that data protection should be considered part of the solution as it can render the transparency and accountability necessary for trustworthiness. Privacy and ease of use are crucial for the success of any contact tracing technology, according to Willem Jonker, CEO of EIT Digital. He presented the contact tracing system using physical tokens that EIT Digital is currently developing as an alternative technical option for virus tracing, and which is independent of apps and mobile platforms.

Following the experts’ presentations, Eva Kaili emphasised the need to enhance the interoperability and epidemiological value of these apps to help millions of Europeans travel more easily this summer by removing barriers and grounding safety protocols on solid data. She further argued for the need to talk about contact alerts and contact safety instead of contact tracing, as the latter may suggest tracking people’s movements and undermining the right of privacy. In her closing remarks, Petra De Sutter (Greens/European Free Alliance, Belgium), Member of the STOA Panel, thanked the participants and argued in favour of the need to render all contact tracing apps compatible at least within the EU. Finally, she urged for a stronger EU-wide approach in the design of the terms of deployment of this technology, as well as in the sharing and comparability of the data collected.

If you missed out this time, you can watch the webstream.

Written by Alessandro D’Alfonso, Marianna Pari, Magdalena Sapała,

© European Union 2020: EC – Audiovisual Service; Claudio Centonze

The current multiannual financial framework (MFF), also known as the EU’s long-term budget, comes to an end this year. While the European Commission put forward a proposal for the next MFF and its financing in May 2018, agreement has so far proved elusive under legislative procedures that give a veto power to each Member State. In recent months, the unfinished negotiations have become intertwined with the debate on the creation of a common EU tool to counter the severe socio-economic consequences of the coronavirus pandemic. In May 2020, the Commission tabled revised proposals for a 2021-2027 MFF worth €1 100 billion and the EU own resources system, together with a proposal for a €750 billion recovery instrument, Next Generation EU (NGEU). The latter would be financed with funds borrowed on the capital markets to reinforce EU budgetary instruments in the 2021-2024 period. In addition, an amendment to the current MFF would provide a bridging solution to fund some recovery objectives this year already. The complex negotiations, which involve many different legislative procedures, are now entering a key phase. Issues expected to be under the spotlight include: the size of the MFF and of the NGEU and their interaction; reform of the financing system with the possible creation of new EU own resources; the breakdown of allocations (between policies and Member States); the contribution to the green transition; conditionalities (such as rules linking EU spending to the rule of law or to challenges identified in the European Semester); flexibility provisions to react to unforeseen events; the mix of grants and loans in the recovery instrument; and the repayment of funds borrowed under NGEU. European Council President Charles Michel has prepared a compromise package ahead of the July European Council meeting. If the Heads of State or Government find a political agreement, the next step will involve negotiations between Parliament and Council, since the former’s consent is required in order for the MFF Regulation to be adopted. Parliament, which has been ready to negotiate on the basis of a detailed position since November 2018, is a strong advocate of a robust MFF and an ambitious recovery plan. It has stressed that it will not give its consent if the package does not include reform of the EU financing system, introducing new EU own resources.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Negotiations on the next MFF and the EU recovery instrument: Key issues ahead of the July European Council‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Wilhelm Lehmann and Christian Salm,

© Communautés européennes 1985, 1990 – EP

The consensus among most historians of European integration and political scientists is that Jacques Delors, who served as President of the European Commission from 1985 to 1995, was the most successful holder of that post to date. His agenda and accomplishments include the EU single market, the Single European Act, Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) and the rapid integration of the former German Democratic Republic into the European Community. His combination of coherent agenda-setting and strong negotiating skills, acquired through long experience of trade union bargaining and years of ministerial responsibilities in turbulent times, puts Delors above other Commission Presidents, whether in terms of institutional innovation or the development of new Europe-wide policies. He also showed himself able to react swiftly to external events, notably the collapse of the Soviet bloc, whilst building Europe’s credibility on the international stage.

This Briefing records Delors’ life across its crucial stages, from trade union activist, senior civil servant, French politician, and Member of the European Parliament, to the helm of the European Commission, where he left the greatest individual impact on European integration history to date. It also traces the most important ideas that guided Delors in his national and European roles. Finally, it describes the political events and key actors which made Delors’ decade in office a time of important decisions and progress in the process of European integration and, in doing so, it draws on recent academic literature and on speeches Delors gave in the European Parliament.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Jacques Delors: Architect of the modern European Union‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Lieve Van Woensel and Sara Suna Lipp

Nanotechnology, making it possible to manipulate matter on a ‘nano’ scale, emerged in the early 1980s. More recently, nanotechnology has become the intersection at which several scientific disciplines converge. The convergence of physics with biology has led to many scientific discoveries and nanotechnology applications, transforming the future of biology, and providing new solutions for medicine and healthcare. These include nano-sized artificial motors, built using biological molecules; while nanomedicine targets cancer cells, delivers drugs and battles antibiotic resistance bacteria. The recent coronavirus crisis demonstrated nanotechnology applications’ importance to finding fast and innovative solutions, such as for the detection and identification of viruses.

The online STOA workshop ‘The big future of nanotechnology in medicine‘, proposed and chaired by Lina Gálvez Muñoz (S&D, Spain) and STOA Panel member, was held on 25 June 2020. The workshop highlighted recent developments in nanotechnology and nanomedicine and provided a view of consumer perception and ethics in the field, as well as responsible research and innovation. Lina Gálvez Muñoz introduced the event, emphasising that the discussion on nanotechnology is even more relevant in the light of the recent coronavirus crisis. She welcomed the expert speakers: Sonia Contera, Professor at the Oxford Physics Department and author of Nano Comes to Life; Laura M. Lechuga, Professor at ICN2 and head of the CONVAT project; Maurizio Salvi, Senior Policy Analyst in the Scientific Advice Mechanism (SAM) Unit, European Commission; and Roxanne Van Giesen, Senior researcher in consumer research at CentERdata.

'Many ethical and policy-making challenges are linked to nanotechnology. It is important to have regulatory framewo… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…—
STOA Panel (@EP_ScienceTech) June 25, 2020

 

Keynote speaker Sonia Contera provided a historical perspective of developments in nanotechnology. She mentioned that, based on consumer and public responses, nanotechnology was one of the first technological sectors in the EU with a formal agenda for ethics and responsible innovation, pioneering this approach in the world. She explained that a new kind of nanotechnology is bringing together synthetic biology with computer sciences and physics, thus embracing biological complexity to create novel materials, drugs and future applications. In this context, she reviewed recent developments such as new antibacterials, cancer immunotherapies and vaccines, 3D-printed organs or organs-on-a-chip. Sonia Contera concluded by stating that the approach of science and technology is changing by adapting to the complexity of nature and highlighted the importance of diversity and multidisciplinarity in science to face the challenges of the 21st century.

The coronavirus crisis has shown that novel diagnostic tools for rapid, sensitive and specific testing and population screening are essential to tackling infectious outbreaks. Laura M. Lechuga, head of the CONVAT project (one of the first projects funded by the Horizon 2020 European Union framework programme to fight Covid‑19), explained that there are currently three different Covid‑19 diagnostic strategies. These are: (i) detection of the virus RNA genetic material by nucleic acid tests; (ii) detection of the intact virus by antigen detection tests; and (iii) detection of antibodies by serological tests. She described the limitations of each test; and highlighted the aim of the CONVAT project: to create point-of-care nanobiosensors that can provide fast, sensitive, massive and quantitative diagnostics. She concluded that the distinctive feature of nanophotonic biosensors, where light interacts with viral particles to produce a specific and quantitative signal, ranks them as a highly competitive technology. These tools will also make it possible to monitor animal reservoirs for the detection of new emerging viruses.

'Material science and biology converge. Nanotechnology offers new approaches to understand ourselves and our enviro… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…—
STOA Panel (@EP_ScienceTech) June 25, 2020

 

Maurizio Salvi, argued that nanotechnology is one of the most successful examples of ethical, legal and societal issues being strongly reflected in the innovation strategy in the field. He explained that, from the very beginning, nanomedicine has addressed issues such as safety, informed consent, non-discrimination in terms of accessibility, and the precautionary principle from an ethical viewpoint. He pointed out that different nanomedicine applications are evaluated separately. Governance of the nanotechnology sector at the European level shows an effort to embed the complexity of implications into a global strategy, however no unique solution addresses these ethical, legal or societal issues, and debates on national and local level are highly important.

Consumer perception significantly influences the development of technologies, as society can either accept or reject a new technology, and nanotechnology is no exception. Roxanne Van Giesen, a senior researcher on consumer perception, explained that such opinions are based on affect or cognition. She noted that applications more closely linked to the body, such as food or water, are more likely to raise societal concern, and rely more on emotions than knowledge. Interestingly, however, her data on nanomedicine showed similar acceptance levels as for conventional medicine. This underlined the fact that people more readily accept technologies when they are used in health/life-saving applications. The acceptance and success of this technology, she concluded, greatly depends on communication and increasing factual knowledge by building on existing knowledge of the target audience.

“With the coronavirus crisis, it is now more important than ever to discuss the role of nanotechnology in medicine.… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…—
STOA Panel (@EP_ScienceTech) June 25, 2020

 

In the subsequent discussion, the importance of diversity and interdisciplinarity in science emerged as a key message. Public trust and consumer perception can only be influenced in a positive way if discussions are inclusive. Furthermore, the success of a nanotechnology application depends on the full synergy of different disciplines from the beginning of research and development to the end product.

In her concluding remarks, Petra De Sutter (Greens/EFA, Belgium) and STOA Panel member underlined the many ethical and policy-making challenges linked to nanotechnology. She pointed out that, as with artificial intelligence, policy-making in the nanotechnology field should follow a risk-based approach dependent on applications. She highlighted the importance of regulatory frameworks that are evidence-based and promote public trust. Petra De Sutter concluded the workshop by pointing out that the legislative sector also needs to move from reductionism to acknowledging complexity and interdisciplinarity in order to address complex technologies such as nanotechnology.

The full recording of the meeting is available here.

 

Click to view slideshow.

Written by Jaan Soone,

© Buffaloboy / Adobe Stock

In the December 2019 European Green Deal communication, which aims to reboot the EU’s efforts to tackle challenges related to climate change and the environment, the European Commission proposed to review the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Directive.

The Directive was adopted in 2014 to encourage the development of alternative fuel filling stations and charging points in EU countries, and required Member States to put in place development plans for alternative fuels infrastructure. However, according to a 2017 Commission evaluation, the plans did not provide sufficient certainty for fully developing the alternative fuels infrastructure network, and development has been uneven across the EU.

Car-makers and alternative fuels producers, clean energy campaigners and the European Parliament have called for the revision of the Directive, to ensure that sufficient infrastructure is in place in line with efforts to reduce emissions in the transport sector and to help meet the climate and environment goals set out in the Paris Agreement and the Green Deal.

On 27 May 2020, in response to the coronavirus pandemic, the Commission proposed the recovery plan for Europe in which it puts even greater focus on developing alternative fuel infrastructure, electric vehicles, hydrogen technology and renewable energy, repeating its intention to review the 2014 Directive.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Towards a revision of the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Directive‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Ralf Drachenberg,

© Shutterstock

Based on an updated ‘negotiating box’ presented by the President of the European Council, Charles Michel, on 10 July, the special meeting of the European Council on 17-18 July will aim at finding a political agreement on the EU recovery fund, entitled ‘Next Generation EU’, and the multiannual financial framework (MFF) for the 2021-27 seven-year financing period. It will be the first meeting of EU Heads of State or Government to take place in person since the coronavirus outbreak. The last such physical meeting of the European Council – held on 20-21 February, prior to the crisis –failed to reach a political agreement on the EU’s long-term budget. The revised negotiating box, taking into account the Commission’s updated MFF proposals – adopted alongside, and linked to, its recovery fund proposals – envisages a reduced MFF amounting to €1.074 trillion. Furthermore, Charles Michel’s proposals maintain the balance between loans and grants for the recovery fund proposed by the Commission. While a lot of pressure is being applied to find an agreement urgently, it remains to be seen whether EU leaders will agree a deal at this meeting or whether yet another meeting will be needed. In any case, the current MFF negotiations have already taken much longer than was originally intended, potentially jeopardising the timely launch of the EU’s new spending programmes.

1. Consultations aiming at a compromise on the 2021-27 MFF and the recovery plan

Following the video-conference meeting on 19 June – which was the first occasion for Heads of State or Government to discuss and obtain clarifications on the proposals put on the table by the Commission on a revised MFF and on the recovery fund – Charles Michel launched a series of consultations with all the Member States, thus opening the negotiation phase.

When presenting the results of the 19 June meeting, Mr Michel also expressed awareness of the need to swiftly reach political agreement on the long-term budget. As the President of the European Parliament, David Sassoli, recalled when addressing that meeting, a political agreement in the European Council, once reached, does not end the negotiations, which can only be concluded with an agreement between the Parliament and the Council. A further delay in the adoption of the next MFF regulation could indeed negatively impact the timely launch of new EU programmes, and thereby the recovery of the EU economy.

2. Charles Michel’s new ‘negotiating box’

Based on the consultations held over recent weeks, on 10 July, Charles Michel presented his updated ‘negotiating box’ – a document aimed at facilitating the gradual completion of negotiations to prepare the final deliberation in the European Council. This replaces the earlier one he had presented on 14 February 2020, which was unable to generate the necessary consensus.

As stressed during his press conference, the latest Michel proposals are firmly ‘grounded in the political priorities of the European Union, climate transformation, digital agenda, European values and a stronger Europe in the world’, as outlined in 2019-24 EU Strategic Agenda. They aim at ensuring recovery following the coronavirus crisis and at mitigating the economic and social consequences thereof. Thus, the current proposals are built around three broad objectives: ‘first convergence, second resilience and (then) transformation. Concretely, this means: repairing the damage caused by Covid‑19, reforming our economies and remodelling our societies.’

The revised negotiation package addresses six issues: i) the size of the MFF, ii) the size of the recovery fund, iii) the existence and size of rebates, iv) the balance between grants and loans, v) the allocation criteria for funding, and vi) the link between the recovery fund, its governance and the role of different institutions as well as national reforms.

1) Overall size of the MFF: President Michel’s current compromise proposal envisages a reduced MFF of €1.074 trillion, in comparison to the Commission’s proposal of €1.1 trillion. It remains very close to the figure presented by the European Council President at the special European Council meeting in February. However, the proposed size of the long-term budget falls far short of the European Parliament’s ambitions for the Union for the next seven years. As underlined in a joint letter to the European Council from five of the seven political groups in the European Parliament ahead of the 19 June meeting, ‘the Union must meet its objectives and tackle the challenges thrown at it by the 21st century. The only way forward is to adopt a robust MFF for 2021-2027. [However,] the revised Commission proposals on the next MFF fall short [on] a number of commitments and ambitions. We will continue to defend Parliament’s position in the upcoming negotiations and we will not compromise on the future of the European Union’. Speaking to EU leaders at that meeting, President Sassoli stressed that the Parliament considered the Commission’s ambitious proposal as a starting-point and ‘will accept no retreat from this initial position, but rather seek to improve it’.

2) Overall size of the recovery instrument: According to Charles Michel, the recovery fund would remain at €750 billion, as proposed by the Commission.

3) Rebates: The negotiating box also envisages the continuation of the rebates or ‘budget correction mechanisms as lump sums’ for Austria, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden. The European Commission proposed to phase out the current rebates over time, whilst the European Parliament has called for ‘the abolition of all rebates and corrections’.

4) The balance between loans and grants: The revised negotiating box aims to maintain the balance between loans and grants as proposed by the European Commission, i.e. €500 billion in grants and €250 billion in loans. As the grants include sub-categories relating to budgetary guarantees, in practice this translates into a three-way split of 58 % grants, 33 % loans, and 9 % budgetary guarantees (see EPRS Briefing on Next Generation Europe). As emphasised by the leaders of five political groups in the above-mentioned joint letter to the European Council, ‘we believe that [€]500 billion in grants is the bare minimum to provide a credible European response to such a huge crisis. We oppose any reduction’.

5) The allocation criteria for the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF): Charles Michel has reiterated that the objective is to ‘establish a real link between the Recovery Plan and the crisis’, and that funding should primarily go to countries and sectors most affected by the crisis. Therefore, 70 % of the RRF will be committed in 2021 and 2022 in accordance with the Commission’s allocation criteria. The remaining 30 % will be committed in 2023, taking into account the drop in GDP in 2020 and 2021. The total envelope should be disbursed by 2026.

6) Governance/conditionality: The last element of the revised negotiation package has three components:

• The reform and resilience national plans: Based on the Commission’s country-specific recommendations, Member States will be required to prepare national recovery and resilience plans for 2021-23, in line with the European Semester. The plans will be reviewed in 2022, and the assessment of these plans will be approved by the Council by qualified majority vote (QMV), on a proposal by the Commission. The European Council President’s proposal would give a stronger role to the Council throughout the process, with a view to ensuring better implementation and a greater sense of ownership. This clearly implies limited involvement of the European Parliament in the process, and a lack of parliamentary oversight of implementation. As stressed by the five main political groups in the European Parliament, ‘we … will continue to strive for the full involvement of Parliament in the establishment and delivery of the Recovery Instrument with the aim of increasing its transparency and democratic accountability. We will use all means at our disposal to achieve this objective’.
• Climate change: In order to reach the EU objective of climate neutrality by 2050, Charles Michel proposes to earmark 30 % of funding for climate-related projects. It is worth recalling that the topic of climate change was, prior to the pandemic, due to be discussed at the June 2020 European Council meeting, but that the point was absent from the video-conference discussions. This thus postponed to an unspecified point in time the debate on the end of the temporary exemption granted to Poland in December 2019, when the country announced that it could not commit to ‘the objective of achieving a climate neutral economy by 2050’. Securing the green envelope in the form proposed by the European Commission in May 2020 might enable Poland to commit to the 2050 climate objective, since the country would be among the top three beneficiaries of the Just Transition Fund.
• Rule of law and European values: President Michel proposes to establish a strong link between funding and respect for governance and rule of law, thus maintaining his proposal from February on a new budget conditionality, which would allow the Council to adopt sanctions in the form of withdrawal of funding by QMV. However, this new budget conditionality has been substantially weakened in comparison to the Commission proposal, which envisaged that a recommendation on measures to be applied to a failing Member State would be subject to reverse qualified majority in the Council (i.e. a qualified majority would be needed to block the proposal, rather than to approve it). In this context, Mr Michel also proposed to ‘increase the funding for Rule of Law and values projects, through additional financing for the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Justice, Rights and Values Programme, with a special focus on disinformation and to promote media plurality’. He stressed that the framework would result in ‘a system of permanent rule of law monitoring’.

Other elements of the negotiating box

• Repayments and own resources: Charles Michel proposes that repayments should start earlier, in 2026 rather than in 2028 as proposed by the Commission. In his view, this would enhance the pressure to introduce new own resources. He suggests that such own resources be introduced in three priority areas: plastic waste, a carbon adjustment mechanism and the digital levy. Subsequently, the Commission should come back with a revised proposal on the emissions trading system (ETS) and work would continue on a financial transaction mechanism. The introduction of new own resources is a crucial point for the European Parliament: as stressed in the joint letter from five political groups, ‘the Parliament would only give its consent to the next MFF if a basket of new own resources were to be introduced’.
• New Brexit reserve: The negotiating box also includes a new Brexit reserve of €5 billion to counter unforeseen consequences in the most affected Member States and sectors.
• Health: Funds for RescEU and health would increase in line with the Commission proposal, in order to respond to coronavirus and its consequences of.
• Cohesion funding: Charles Michel has also stated that, whilst his revised MFF proposal was lower than the Commission proposal, the allocations for cohesion money should remain at the same level. Thus, his negotiating box also includes cuts and scaling back of policy areas such as Horizon Europe (the research programme) and Erasmus+. This approach goes against some important priorities of the Parliament, and notably announcements made by President Sassoli after the June 2020 meeting, with ‘the Parliament aiming to increase the allocation for the Erasmus+ programme.

3. Recent developments

On 8 July, the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, invited the Presidents of the European Parliament, David Sassoli, the European Council, Charles Michel, and the Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, President-in-Office of the Council of the EU, to an Article 324 TFEU meeting, to discuss the state of play in the negotiations on the next MFF and Next Generation EU. The four Presidents stressed that it would be essential for EU Heads of State or Government to reach an agreement at the upcoming European Council meeting, in order to allow the inter-institutional negotiations to start. They agreed to stay in close contact throughout the coming weeks and months. A similar Article 324 TFEU meeting took place on 27 June 2013, during the negotiations on the 2014-20 MFF. Two significant differences ought to be pointed out. First, the earlier meeting only included the presidents of three institutions (Martin Schulz for the Parliament, Enda Kenny for the Council and José Manuel Barroso for the Commission) and did not include the President of the European Council (then Herman Van Rompuy). Indeed, the Treaty does not mention the European Council with respect to the MFF, and provides for discussion within the institutional triangle. Second, the earlier meeting took place after a political agreement had been found in the European Council meeting of 7-8 February 2013.

On the same day as that four-way meeting, Charles Michel also outlined the conclusions of the 19 June 2020 European Council meeting during the plenary session of the European Parliament, and discussed with MEPs the preparation of the European Council meeting of 17-18 July. During the debate, MEPs emphasised the crucial importance of adequate financing for the long-term budget, and the critical need to introduce new own resources for the EU budget, without which the Parliament would not give its consent. President Sassoli reiterated that ‘for the European Parliament, the proposal of the European Commission is not a point of arrival, but the minimum basis from which to start. We cannot and must not go backwards. We will fight for the success of this proposal with all the means at our disposal.’ MEPs reminded Mr Michel that ‘a deal in the Council is not the final deal’, as the Parliament will have a final vote before the 2021-27 MFF can enter into force.

Written by Katarzyna Sochacka and Clare Ferguson,

© European Union 2020 – Source : EP/Laurie DIEFFEMBACQ

The July 2020 plenary session was the fifth conducted with Members participating remotely, using the alternative voting procedure put in place in March by Parliament’s Bureau, although a majority were present in Brussels. During this session a number of Council and European Commission statements were debated, with the presentation of the programme of activities of the German Presidency a highlight. Members also debated the conclusions of the European Council meeting of 19 June and preparation of the meeting of 17-18 July 2020. Members heard Council and Commission statements on Union policy on preventing money laundering and terrorist financing, on the state of play of Council negotiations on the proposed regulation on the protection of the Union’s budget in case of generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law in the Member States, and on cultural recovery in Europe. Parliament also debated a Commission statement commemorating the 25th anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide. Members debated statements from the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borell, on stability and security in the Mediterranean and the negative role of Turkey, and on the situation in Belarus. Parliament voted on a number of legislative proposals and resolutions including on the European citizens’ initiative, a resolution on the humanitarian situation in Venezuela, and a chemicals strategy for sustainability.

EU post-coronavirus public health strategy

Members heard statements from the Council and Commission on the post-coronavirus public health strategy, which were followed by a debate on the measures required to reorganise EU assistance for various specific sectors following the pandemic and in light of its expected economic consequences. Parliament adopted, by a large majority (526 votes to 105 and 50 abstentions), a resolution in favour of stronger health cooperation and creation of a European Health Union. In learning lessons from the coronavirus crisis, Parliament underlined the need for common minimum standards and equal access to healthcare. To prepare for possible resurgence of the pandemic, Members called for a European Health Response Mechanism. Parliament also welcomed the newly proposed EU4Health programme.

Cohesion policy role in the coronavirus pandemic recovery

The Commission responded to an oral question on the role of cohesion policy in tackling the socio-economic fallout from Covid-19, agreeing with Parliament that a decision on the legislation regulating cohesion spending and the revised EU budget proposals is urgent.

Road transport: Social and market rules

Parliament adopted at second reading three important files on social and market legislation aimed at ending distortion of competition in the road transport sector and providing better rest conditions for drivers. The ‘Mobility Package’ now becomes law, ensuring better working conditions for freight drivers, fairer competition and measures to tackle illegal practices, as well as clear rules on posting of drivers to ensure equal pay.

Amending Budget No 5/2020: Continuing refugee and host community support

By a large majority (557 votes to 72 and 59 abstentions), Parliament approved draft amending budget (No 5) to the 2020 EU general budget, seeking to extend the humanitarian support currently provided for refugees and host communities in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey as a result of the Syrian crisis. Following this amendment, €485 million will maintain funding of the EU’s humanitarian support in Turkey, and €100 million will be used to fund projects assisting refugees in Jordan and Lebanon through mobilisation of the contingency margin in 2020.

Annual report on the European Investment Bank’s financial activities

Members adopted a resolution based on the Committee on Budgets’ report on the 2019 annual report on the European Investment Bank’s financial activities. The report welcomes the EIB’s reinforced focus on the EU priorities of green investment and supporting small and medium-sized enterprises, but underlines that the bank can still do more in this direction. The report also expresses concern regarding continued exceptions for gas projects, the geographical coverage of EIB lending, the use and control of intermediaries to disburse external lending, as well as transparency towards other EU institutions.

Annual report on control of the EIB’s financial activities

The EIB’s move towards greening the EIB’s investment policy is also a focus of the Budgetary Control (CONT) Committee’s annual report on control of the EIB’s financial activities in 2018. Members adopted a resolution based on the report, which covers the activities of the EIB and the types of transactions and relationships it deals with in detail. The need to ensure funding for climate sensitive projects, and to ensure that ethics, integrity, transparency and accountability are key in all EIB activities was highlighted in the report.

2018 report on protection of the EU’s financial interests – Combating fraud

Members also adopted (421 votes to 167 and 93 abstentions) a resolution the 2018 report on protection of the EU’s financial interests and the fight against fraudulent use of EU funding, where a 25 % fall in the number of irregularities compared to the previous year is counterbalanced by the amounts involved having nevertheless risen by 183 %, necessitating continued vigilance and action by the EU Member States.

Boosting Roma inclusion process in Europe for the next decade

Members also heard and debated a Council and Commission statement on plans to adopt a new EU policy framework to tackle socio-economic exclusion and discrimination against Roma peoples. Parliament has already drawn attention to the need for stronger measures and will be making recommendations for the new EU framework for the equality and inclusion of Europe’s largest ethnic minority.

Annual human rights report 2019

Members held a joint debate on statements by the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell, on the 2019 annual report on human rights and democracy. The report provides an overview of EU actions to promote human rights worldwide, using development instruments, trade conditionality, external policies and diplomacy. The debate is just the first stage in a process under which Parliament will prepare its own report later in the year, providing indications for future measures, in advance of the adoption of a new EU action plan on human rights.

Opening of trilogue negotiations

Members confirmed (without a vote) two Industry, Research and Energy Committee (ITRE) mandates on a European Institute of Innovation and Technology and on the strategic innovation agenda of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology. They also confirmed an International Trade Committee (INTA) decision to open negotiations on Union rights for the application and enforcement of international trade rules, and an Employment & Social Affairs Committee (EMPL) decision on enhanced cooperation between public employment services.

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

Written by Maria Niestadt,

© Andy Dean / Adobe Stock

Tourism in the European Union (EU) is one of the sectors hardest hit by the coronavirus crisis, with some parts of the sector and some regions more affected than others. Most tourist facilities were closed during the peak of the crisis, and events cancelled or postponed. Tourism businesses are also among the last to resume activities, and even if they do, they still have to apply strict health protocols and containment measures, meaning that they can operate only at restricted capacity. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development estimates that tourism will decline 60-80 % this year, depending on the length of the health crisis and on the pace of recovery.

While aviation, cruise lines, hotels and restaurants are among the most affected, cycle tourism is becoming more popular during the recovery phase. An increasing number of tourists prefer domestic destinations, areas of natural value, active travel and avoiding overcrowded destinations, at least in the short-term. However, some changes might become permanent, such as the rise in purchasing tourism services online or the greater attention paid to hygiene and healthy living.

At the peak of the pandemic, most EU countries introduced temporary border controls and measures restricting free movement across the EU. However, the strictness and timeline of these measures varied greatly from one country to another. Recently, many EU destinations have started to lift national confinement and quarantine measures, including restrictions on travel. By 15 June 2020, most EU countries had opened their borders to EU travellers and had begun to plan to open borders to travellers from certain third countries as of 1 July 2020.

The EU has acted to support the tourism sector, whether by temporarily changing EU rules, helping to interpret current rules or by providing much-needed financial support. The European Commission helped to repatriate EU travellers. On 13 May 2020, the Commission adopted a comprehensive package of non-legislative measures for the tourism and transport sector, with the aim of helping EU countries to gradually lift travel restrictions and allow tourism and transport businesses to reopen. The Council and the European Parliament have, in general, welcomed the package, while making further suggestions on how to help the sector.

Read this briefing on ‘EU tourism sector during the coronavirus crisis‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Magdalena Pasikowska-Schnass,

The lockdowns, border closures and other restrictive measures in response to the coronavirus pandemic brought tourist and cultural activities to a halt in most EU Member States between mid-March and mid-June, significantly affecting businesses and consumers. A progressive easing of these restrictive measures is now under way.

Lockdown in tourism and culture

© Michele Ursi / Adobe Stock

The coronavirus brought much of the planet to a halt. Activities in the domains of tourism and culture were the first to be suspended, and among the last to resume. Tourism and culture have a high share of SMEs and precarious employment, and are among the sectors worst affected by the consequences of the crisis. They contribute a lot to the gross national product (GNP) of, and employment in, the Member States that were hit hardest by the pandemic. Among them, France, Italy and Spain are home to 16 % of Unesco World Cultural Heritage sites and to a third of EU cultural heritage sites. Sector stakeholders are concerned by the fact that 13 % of the 95 % of world museums that closed due to the coronavirus may never reopen.

Closed from mid-March, most EU internal borders reopened as of mid-June, whereas external borders started to reopen progressively in early July. Both internal and external tourism stopped from one day to the next, as did cultural activities with the closure of all cultural premises. World Heritage sites were closed or partially closed in 90 % of countries across the world in April. By the end of May, only 46 % of them had reopened.

Relationship between tourism and culture

A 2009 OECD publication highlights the mutually beneficial relationship between culture, which attracts tourists, and tourism, which enhances culture and creates income, while also supporting cultural heritage, production and creativity. Cultural tourism has been one of the fastest-growing global markets, and cultural and creative industries, in addition to cultural heritage, its driving force. In order to reap all the benefits of this relationship, partnership between the two sectors is essential. While sustainable tourism, protection and management of cultural assets promote local culture and well-being, badly planned tourism results in overcrowding and deterioration of traditional culture, in crime and increased property prices and taxes.

Moreover, loss of tourism revenue in places of cultural interest results in loss of social security and revenue for artists and cultural professionals. It strongly affects not only heritage sites, but also museums, crafts and cultural sectors which are often involved in seasonal cultural events and festivals.

According to estimates of the UN World Tourism Organization, tourism suffered a loss of US$80 billion in the first quarter of 2020; this has had a negative impact on those working in the cultural sector and on artists’ mobility, due to the cancellation of festivals and to border closures.

Easing of coronavirus-related measures in culture and tourism

According to Unesco, financial investment in the culture subsectors (museums, heritage sites, creative industries) will be strategic for economic recovery, possibly also benefiting tourism. To repair the damage to the creative economy, the World Bank has rapidly provided US$14 billion worth of liquidity to the sector.

Easing lockdown measures, while observing requirements such as keeping a physical distance, wearing a face mask or using a tracing app, across Member States and particularly in tourist regions, is equally challenging for the sectors of tourism and culture. As recommended by the OECD, because these sectors are highly interdependent and face similar difficulties, they could coordinate their efforts or set up joint partnerships to help each other survive and perhaps thrive.

Italy was the first to reopen some of its famous sites, in the last weekend of May, with the Leaning Tower of Pisa admitting only 15 persons at a time, with face masks and an electronic device to warn if the one-metre distance has been violated. Some cities have started using open public spaces for cultural activities, for example, for film projections on building facades (Rome), for cultural festivals and events in the streets and public squares (Seville), or for artists to display their works (Paris).

The International Council of Museums (ICOM) has made recommendations for museums’ reopening, including:

• admitting a limited number of visitor to museums and galleries, and online ticket purchase in advance to manage the flow and ensure contactless entry;
• prohibiting group tours and allocating strict time slots;
• installing floor signs for social distancing;
• organising special sessions for visits by elderly people;
• introducing a one-way system for visits and replacing audio guides with smartphone apps;
• placing protective barriers for exchanges that cannot occur digitally.

Performing Arts Employers’ Associations League Europe has published strategies for reopening theatres and cultural activities in different countries, and provided guidance on risk assessment and prevention.

European Commission proposal for tourism and transport

In its communication of 13 May on tourism and transport in 2020 and beyond, the Commission recognised the correlations between culture and tourism and proposed initiatives, such as technological and financial solutions, to support and potentially revive the two sectors.

The digital cultural heritage platform, Europeana, will further develop its tourism angle; in June it put on display European cultural jewels and hidden gems never before shown. The Cultural gems web app is launching a citizen ambassadors’ campaign to support proximity tourism. Opportunities to discover natural and cultural gems closer to home and taste local products could be even greater in 2021 – the European Year of Rail – when a host of events will be held to promote intra-EU tourism by train.

Joint efforts on the part of the Member States and the Commission to support information-sharing aim to encourage EU citizens to discover the diversity of landscapes, cultures and experiences in the EU. An example of these efforts is the Commission’s European Capitals of Smart Tourism award, initiated by the European Parliament in recognition of EU cities’ outstanding achievements as tourism destinations in four areas, among which cultural heritage and creativity. Another initiative the Commission intends to promote is the European Destinations of Excellence (EDEN), launched in 2006. It enhances the visibility of emerging, non-traditional EU destinations committed to socially, culturally and environmentally sustainable tourism.

Patronage voucher schemes, set up by some Member States to encourage customers to support hotels or restaurants, could be extended to tourism-related aspects of the culture and entertainment sectors. The Commission Re-open EU web portal provides links to such schemes to help customers find all the initiatives and offers in the EU, linking up suppliers with all initiatives and platforms offering such schemes.

On 18 June, the Commission launched a social media campaign – ‘Europe’s culture – close to you: This Summer I visit Europe’ – with a focus on sustainable, local, cultural tourism. The campaign raises Europeans’ awareness of their rich cultural diversity and of the cultural sites in the EU that have been granted the European Heritage Label for their role in European history, and/or the European Heritage Awards/Europa Nostra Awards. The campaign also covers the Council of Europe cultural routes initiative. As part of this initiative, the EU supports the Routes4U project in four EU macro-regions – the Alpine, the Adriatic-Ionian, the Baltic Sea and the Danube – to foster their development through cultural heritage tourism.

European Parliament

A resolution on transport and tourism in 2020 and beyond (2020/2649(RSP)), adopted during the Parliament’s June plenary session, recalled that 68 % of EU tourists choose their holiday destination for its cultural heritage, and that cultural tourism accounts for 40 % of the sector. It highlighted the need to move to more sustainable forms of tourism that respect the environment and cultural heritage. It furthermore called on the Commission to strengthen the financial sustainability of cultural sites funded by the European Regional Development Fund and to allow the development of private-fund schemes to sustain them. The EP urged support for both the culture and the tourism sectors, especially for SMEs and the self-employed. It also urged the introduction of alternative support mechanisms for cultural workers who are heavily dependent on tourism, and for a larger budget for the Discover EU programme in order to boost youth tourism across the EU. It pointed to the fact that safety rules for visitors entail an extra burden on cultural institutions and sites, and to their need for public aid during the recovery period.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Cultural tourism out of confinement‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© Steve / Adobe Stock

As the coronavirus crisis shows no sign of abating globally, many governments around the world face tough choices between easing virus containment measures, in order to allow economic recovery, or keeping these measures in place, to protect their citizens’ health and their healthcare systems from being overwhelmed. They have launched vast financial programmes to support vulnerable households and the newly unemployed, backed banks to keep credit flowing in the economy, and strengthened healthcare systems in anticipation of a possible second wave.

This note offers links to recent commentaries and reports from international think tanks on coronavirus and related issues. Earlier publications on financing the fight against the coronavirus can be found in the previous item in this series, published by EPRS on 6 July.

The financial fragility of European households in the time of Covid-19
Bruegel, July 2020

Conséquences et leçons d’un virus
Institut français des relations internationales, July 2020

Economy must not get stuck between lockdown and recovery
Chatham House, July 2020

EU recovery plans should fund the Covid-19 battles to come; not be used to nurse old wounds
Bruegel, July 2020

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

Covid could surge anywhere: This tool helps hospitals prepare
Rand Corporation, July 2020

Learning to live in a riskier world
Rand Corporation, July 2020

SURE: From temporary facility to permanent instrument
Centre for European Policy Studies, July 2020

Circulation et commercialisation de chloroquine en Afrique de l’Ouest: Une géopolitique du médicament à la lumière du Covid-19
Institut français des relations internationales, July 2020

Credible emerging market central banks could embrace quantitative easing to fight COVID-19
Bruegel, July 2020

What will the next ‘Great Depression’ look like?
Friends of Europe, July 2020

Health sovereignty: How to build a resilient European response to pandemics
European Council on Foreign Relations, July 2020

Next generation EU: Shock absorber or larger, debt-financed EU budget?
Centre for European Policy Studies, July 2020

BRI and cities: New opportunities of investment after Covid-19
Istituto per gli Studi di Politica Internazionale, July 2020

Lukashenko’s Coronavirus election
German Marshall Fund, July 2020

Contextualizing the United Kingdom’s high Coronavirus mortality rates among Muslims
German Marshall Fund, July 2020

Europe’s good crisis
Centre for European Policy Studies, July 2020

Clearer role for business regulators needed in monitoring trade agreements
Chatham House, July 2020

Covid-19 and the old-new politics of irregular migration from Libya
Wilfried Martens Centre, July 2020

Transatlantic Trends 2020
German Marshall Fund, Bertelsmann Foundation, Institute Montaingne, June 2020

Covid-19, le djihadisme au défi d’une pandémie
Fondation pour la recherche stratégique, June 2020

Together in trauma: Europeans and the world after Covid-19
European Council on Foreign Relations, June 2020

A path to recovery from Covid-19 for small businesses
Rand Corporation, June 2020

Could the Coronavirus pandemic revive international cooperation?
Council on Foreign Relations, June 2020

Resilience in the face of a pandemic: Covid weighs unevenly across racial lines
Brookings Institution, June 2020

Emergency powers, Covid-19 and the new challenge for human rights
Instituto Affari Internazionali, June 2020

Is Covid-19 a game changer for Transatlantic narratives on China?
Chatham House, June 2020

The latest crisis of the European Union: The political, economic, and social consequences of the new coronavirus
Institute for Foreign Affairs and Trade, June 2020

The multilateral order post-Covid: Expert voices
Institute for International and European Affairs, June 2020

Aspects of the cybersecurity ecosystem in the United States: Trends before and during the corona pandemic
Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, June 2020

Quelles initiatives politiques internationales pour la prévention des maladies infectieuses d’origine zoonotique?
IDDRI, June 2020

Covid-19 and the Syrian economy: Implications for social justice
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, June 2020

Health sovereignty: How to build a resilient European response to pandemics
European Council on Foreign Relations, June 2020

Revitalizing resilience is a tough but vital political challenge
Chatham House, June 2020

China’s responsibility for the Covid-19 pandemic: An international law perspective
Finnish Institute of International Affairs, June 2020

Read this briefing on ‘Coronavirus: Tough decisions ahead‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Read all EPRS publications on the coronavirus outbreak

Written by Michael Kaczmarek and Lisa Pschorn,

EYE video recording (WEDFM) – © European Parliament

It is often difficult to find brief and accessible analysis of today’s burning European Union policy issues among the enormous amount of material available. Videos, podcasts and infographics, brief and longer analyses: EPRS colleagues transform their research and analysis into different formats, available on several platforms. To make it easier for you to find the analysis you need, EPRS has compiled topical selections of links to its publications and other online resources on 35 European Union policy areas.

The 35 one-page notes served as background information to questions discussed on Parliament’s European Youth Ideas Hub. A link to each of these Topical Digests is available via the ‘Learn more’ button in each section of the Hub. The whole collection of Topical Digests is also listed below, covering issues ranging from A-Z – from ‘Access to health’, or ‘AI as a force for good’, through ‘Green cities’ or ‘Migration and integration’, to ‘Vaccination’ and ‘Zero-waste life’.

Likewise, EPRS background information served as input for this year’s online edition of the European Youth Event (EYE), which ran from April to May 2020. The event’s 60 live-streamed online activities attracted over 2.2 million views. Several EPRS colleagues participated as speakers or moderators in four of these EYE online sessions, which you can (re)watch here:

– What Europe does for me

– Europe in 2020: 70 years after the Schuman Declaration

– Work in times of crisis and after

– Rural reactions to Covid-19

EPRS Topical Digests to continue the discussion

Below you can find the links to the Topical Digests (left column) that serve as background information to continue the discussion in the corresponding blog section of the European Youth Ideas Hub (right column).

EPRS Topical Digest Related question on the European Youth Ideas blog Access to health Is it a right for all or a privilege for the few? AI as a force for good How do we make sure technology serves the people? Brexit Where do we go from here? Budgeting What does it mean to put your money where your mouth is? Climate Emergency Can we still save ourselves? Dealing with news How do we know what is true in this chaotic mediascape? Digital Addiction Are screens making us sick? E-citizenship How to get heard in 2020? EU-Africa How can we build a mutually beneficial partnership? Europe and the US What is the role for young people? Food of tomorrow How do we ensure zero hunger and a healthy diet for all? Future of Education What’s worth learning in school? Green Cities What should cities of the future look like? Hate speech Are we becoming numb to it? LGBTI rights We’re queer, we’re here and … is equality near? Life fully What is a life well spent? Living with disabilities How can we become more inclusive? Mass surveillance Should we be yearning for some privacy? Millennials and Mental health Are we burning out? Migration and integration What does being European mean in 2020? Modern slavery How do we stop it? Perception of migration How to balance society’s compassion and fear? Populism Is it a dangerous path or an intriguing opportunity? Precarious contracts Is it time to stop saying yes to lousy jobs? Rich-poor divide How do we make sure economic growth is inclusive? Rural renewal How do we get young people to the fields? Safety first Does this mean more or less weapons? Slow Shopping Can we adapt business models to sustainable consumption? Sustainable and reliable energy How to achieve it? Trade and Corruption Do we deal with corrupt countries or not? Understanding cultures How should education contribute to connecting people? Vaccination How do we balance freedom of choice and public welfare? Waste Should we buy less or dispose better? Wonder woman How can we all be equal? Zero-waste life What do we need to achieve it?

Written by Klaus Müller,

This EPRS Briefing relates to the subject of the legislative initiative report currently being prepared by the Employment and Social Affairs Committee (rapporteur: Alex Agius Saliba, S&D, Malta; 2019/2181(INL).

Key aspects

© Adobe Stock

According to Eurofound, the ‘right to disconnect’ refers to a worker’s right to be able to disconnect from work and refrain from engaging in work-related electronic communication, such as emails and other messages, during non-work hours and holidays.

Twenty years ago, it was exceptional (unless in the case of emergency) to contact an employee outside working hours, and even more so during weekends or holidays.

Today, many managers routinely contact employees/colleagues by e-mail or by phone after work, at the weekend and during holidays. In some companies/countries, ‘on call’ is becoming the new norm. Not infrequently, contracts oblige employees to be available after work, at the weekend and during holidays. Being prompt is associated with higher productivity and considered a necessary condition for career advancement; for this reason, some employees consent to taking on the burden of onerous work schedules that invade their private lives.

In 2019, 5.4 % of employed persons in the EU-27 aged 15-64, reported they ‘usually’ worked from home (Eurostat). This share remained constant at around 5 % throughout the 2009-2019 period. However, over the same period, the share of those who ‘sometimes’ worked from home gradually increased, from 6.0 % in 2009 to 9.0 % in 2019. The Netherlands and Finland topped the EU list for remote working, with 14.1 % of employed persons usually working from home in 2019. They were followed by Luxembourg (11.6 %) and Austria (9.9 %). By contrast, the lowest rates of home workers were reported in Bulgaria (0.5 %), Romania (0.8 %), Hungary (1.2 %), Cyprus (1.3 %), Croatia and Greece (both 1.9 %).

In 2020, the coronavirus crisis forced many (private and public) companies and organisations to switch to teleworking, there has been a recent spike in the number of teleworkers. According to the ‘Living, Working and COVID-19’ online survey carried out in April 2020 by Eurofound, 37 % of respondents started working from home during the lockdown. This increase was significantly higher in those countries that already had larger shares of teleworkers (see Figure 1). It is expected that teleworking will become increasingly common in the future.

The widespread increase in telework has positive and negative effects. Telework affords increased productivity, a better work-life balance and greater working-time autonomy. During the coronavirus crisis, teleworking has made it possible to maintain business continuity and employment. However, it can blur the boundaries between people’s professional and private lives.

Read the complete briefing on ‘The right to disconnect‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Zuzana Alexandre, Micaela Del Monte, Gianna Eckert, Silvia Kotanidis, Vendula Langova and Violeta Rakovska (Members’ Research Service and Unit for Legislative Quality, DG Presidency),

© Ivelin Radkov / Adobe Stock

With the virulence of the coronavirus pandemic gradually diminishing, and in the light of the restrictive measures adopted by Member States, attention remains on the way chosen by the various states to respond to the crisis. With states at various stages of relaxing emergency constraints, the effects of the coronavirus pandemic are likely to last in terms of health, economic, social, psychological and possibly even political impact.

Although public attention is now turned towards the widely differing measures that states are taking in order to live with the virus, new challenges are emerging as international and domestic traffic, trade and free movement of people are re-established, having been all but frozen.

In this context, it is still necessary to complete the overview of Member States’ constitutional frameworks in response to the coronavirus pandemic with the hope that this might offer some guidance or insight, should a comparable crisis arise in the future.

This is the last in a series of four briefings and completes the comparative overview of Member States’ institutional responses to the coronavirus crisis by analysing the legislation of Cyprus, Czechia, Greece, Ireland, Lithuania and Slovakia. The first in the series gave an overview of the responses in Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland and Spain, the second covered Austria, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Malta, Romania and Slovenia, while the third covered Croatia, Denmark, Finland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden.

Read the complete briefing on ‘States of emergency in response to the coronavirus crisis: Situation in certain Member States IV‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.