European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

David SASSOLI, EP President, meets with a Vietnamese delegation © European Union 2020 – Source : EP

The President of the European Parliament sometimes receives large numbers of identical messages on a given topic. The Citizens’ Enquiries Unit (AskEP) is asked to reply to these campaign messages. Replies to campaigns are also published on the EPRS blog.

The President of the European Parliament has received a large number of messages on the import and transport of wildlife into Vietnam.

You can find below, in English and Dutch, the reply sent to citizens who wrote to the President of the European Parliament on this matter.

Reply in English

On 12 February 2020, the European Parliament adopted a non-legislative resolution on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

MEPs in the resolution welcome the provisions for cooperation on animal welfare, including technical assistance and capacity-building for the development of high animal welfare standards, and encourages the Parties to make full use of them’.

MEPs further ‘urge the Parties to develop an action plan for cooperation on animal welfare as soon as possible, including a programme for training, capacity-building and assistance in the framework of the agreement, with a view to safeguarding animal welfare at the time of killing and better protecting animals on farms and during transport in Vietnam’.

More information is available in the European Parliament press release on the EU-Vietnam free trade and investment protection deals.

Concerning cats and dogs specifically, the European Parliament also adopted a resolution on protecting the EU’s internal market and consumer rights against the negative implications of the illegal trade in companion animals on 12 February 2020. In the resolution, Members highlight ‘that Member States should ensure that staff at borders are adequately trained in the procedures and rules that apply to the importation of companion animals from listed and unlisted third countries and that they are enforcing these rules’.

More widely, you may find information of interest to you via the Delegation of the European Union to Vietnam.

Reply in Dutch

Op 12 februari 2020 heeft het Europees Parlement een niet-wetgevingsresolutie aangenomen over het ontwerp van besluit van de Raad betreffende de sluiting van de vrijhandelsovereenkomst tussen de Europese Unie en de Socialistische Republiek Vietnam.

In deze resolutie stelt het Parlement dat het “ingenomen [is] met de bepalingen inzake samenwerking op het gebied van dierenwelzijn, met inbegrip van technische bijstand en capaciteitsopbouw voor de ontwikkeling van hoge dierenwelzijnsnormen, en de partijen [verzoekt] deze ten volle te benutten.”

Het Parlement dringt er voorts bij de partijen op aan “zo snel mogelijk een actieplan voor samenwerking op het gebied van dierenwelzijn te ontwikkelen, met inbegrip van een programma voor opleiding, capaciteitsopbouw en bijstand in het kader van de overeenkomst om het dierenwelzijn te waarborgen op het moment van het doden en dieren beter te beschermen op landbouwbedrijven en tijdens transport in Vietnam.”

Meer informatie is te vinden in het persbericht van het Europees Parlement over de vrijhandels- en investeringsbeschermingsovereenkomst tussen de EU en Vietnam.

Ten aanzien van katten en honden heeft het Europees Parlement op 12 februari 2020 ook een resolutie aangenomen over het beschermen van de interne markt van de EU en van de rechten van consumenten tegen de negatieve gevolgen van de illegale handel in gezelschapsdieren. In deze resolutie benadrukt het Parlement “dat de lidstaten ervoor moeten zorgen dat het personeel bij grensovergangen voldoende geschoold is in de procedures en voorschriften voor de invoer van gezelschapsdieren uit derde landen die al dan niet op de lijst staan van landen waaruit invoer is toegestaan, en dat het deze voorschriften ook daadwerkelijk handhaaft.”

De Delegatie van de Europese Unie in Vietnam kan ook een interessante bron zijn voor verdere informatie.

Transport of piglets by road.

The President of the European Parliament sometimes receives large numbers of identical messages on a given topic. The Citizens’ Enquiries Unit (AskEP) is asked to reply to these campaign messages. Replies to campaigns are also published on the EPRS blog.

The President of the European Parliament has received a large number of messages calling for a Europe-wide moratorium on the use of animals in scientific research.

The reply sent to citizens who wrote to the President of the European Parliament on this matter is given below in English and French.

Reply in English

We would inform you that the EU rules on this issue are laid down in Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. The directive is based on the principle of replacement, reduction and refinement of the use of animals in procedures (also known as the ‘Three Rs’ principle).

We would also inform you that during the eighth Parliamentary term (2014‑2019) on 3 May 2018, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on a global ban to end animal testing for cosmetics, in which Members reiterated ‘that animal testing can no longer be justified for cosmetics and asks EU and national public authorities to uphold the public’s opposition to cosmetics testing and support the advancement of innovative, humane testing methods’.

Further to the ban on animal testing for cosmetic purposes Members have tabled questions to the Commission – among others – on animal testing and clarifications on REACH and the Cosmetics Regulation, to which the Commission reply stated that ‘The promotion of alternative methods to animal testing is one of the main objectives of the REACH Regulation’.

On 3 March 2015, a European Citizens’ Initiative ‘Stop Vivisection‘ was submitted to the European Commission, the goal of which was ‘ to abrogate Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes and put forward a new proposal aimed at phasing out the practice of animal experimentation, making compulsory the use – in biomedical and toxicological research – of data directly relevant for the human species’.

The initiative was discussed during a public hearing hosted by the European Parliament on 11 May 2015, to provide a platform for debate for Members, the general public, the European Citizens’ Initiative supporters and experts in the field.

In its communication setting out its actions in response to the initiative, the Commission welcomed the mobilisation of citizens in support of animal welfare and stated that the EU shares the initiative’s conviction that animal testing should be phased out, which is also the main aim of EU legislation.

Numerous petitions have been submitted to the European Parliament on the issue of animal testing and vivisection. Information regarding the right of petition to the European Parliament, including details on the procedures for submitting and supporting a petition and the conditions of admissibility (competence, form, presentation), or inadmissibility thereof, is available on the Petitions Web Portal.

Further information on animal testing is available in the summary of EU legislation on the protection of laboratory animals and the Commission’s webpage on ‘animals used for scientific purposes‘, which also provides details of EU action to identify alternative approaches.

The following websites and publications may also be of interest.

EU Reference Laboratory for alternatives to animal testing (EURL CVAM), the science and knowledge service of the European Commission.

The EURL ECVAM status report on the development, validation and regulatory acceptance of alternative methods and approaches.

European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing, a voluntary collaboration between the European Commission, European trade associations, and companies from eight industry sectors ‘committed to pooling knowledge and resources to accelerate the development, validation and acceptance of alternative approaches to animal testing’.

Alternatives to animal testing, the European Food Safety Authority website.

Reply in French

Nous vous informons que la question de l’expérimentation animale est réglementée au niveau de l’Union par la Directive 2010/63/UE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 22 septembre 2010 relative à la protection des animaux utilisés à des fins scientifiques. La directive s’appuie sur l’application des principes dits de remplacement, de réduction et de raffinement (ou «règle des trois R») de l’utilisation d’animaux dans le cadre de ces procédures.

Nous vous informons également qu’au cours de la huitième législature (2014‑2019), le 3 mai 2018, le Parlement européen a adopté une résolution sur l’interdiction totale de l’expérimentation animale pour les cosmétiques, dans laquelle il «réaffirme que l’expérimentation animale ne peut plus être justifiée pour les cosmétiques et demande à l’Union et aux pouvoirs publics nationaux de soutenir l’opposition des citoyens à l’expérimentation animale pour les cosmétiques et le développement de méthodes d’expérimentation novatrices et humaines».

Dans le droit fil de l’interdiction de l’expérimentation animale dans le domaine des produits cosmétiques, plusieurs députés ont adressé des questions à la Commission concernant, entre autres, l’expérimentation animale et des éclaircissements sur REACH et le règlement sur les produits cosmétiques, ce à quoi la Commission a répondu en déclarant que «la promotion de méthodes alternatives à l’expérimentation animale est l’un des principaux objectifs du règlement REACH».

Le 3 mars 2015, une initiative citoyenne européenne intitulée Stop Vivisection a été présentée à la Commission, en vue de demander à cette dernière «d’abroger la Directive 2010/63/UE relative à la protection des animaux utilisés à des fins scientifiques et de présenter à la place une nouvelle proposition de directive visant à mettre fin à l’expérimentation animale et de rendre obligatoire, pour la recherche biomédicale et toxicologique, l’utilisation de données pertinentes pour l’espèce humaine».

L’initiative a été examinée lors d’une audition publique, organisée par le Parlement européen le 11 mai 2015, pour permettre aux députés, au grand public, aux signataires de l’initiative citoyenne européenne et aux experts du domaine d’échanger sur ces questions.

Dans sa communication exposant ce qu’elle compte faire pour répondre à l’initiative, la Commission salue la mobilisation des citoyens en faveur du bien-être des animaux et déclare que l’Union européenne partage la conviction qui est celle de l’initiative citoyenne, à savoir que les essais sur les animaux devraient être progressivement supprimés, ce qui est aussi la finalité ultime de la législation européenne dans ce domaine.

Un grand nombre de pétitions ont été présentées au Parlement européen sur la question de l’expérimentation animale et de la vivisection. Les informations concernant le droit de pétition auprès du Parlement européen, y compris des précisions sur les procédures à suivre pour présenter et soutenir une pétition et sur les conditions de recevabilité (compétence, forme, présentation), sont disponibles sur le portail des pétitions du Parlement européen.

Davantage d’informations sont disponibles dans la synthèse publiée sur EUR-Lex concernant la protection des animaux de laboratoire ainsi que sur la page web que la Commission consacre aux animaux utilisés à des fins scientifiques, qui précise également les mesures prises par l’Union pour recenser les méthodes de substitution à l’expérimentation animale.

Les sites et publications suivants pourraient également vous intéresser.

Laboratoire de référence de l’Union pour les méthodes de substitution à l’expérimentation animale (EURL CVAM), le service de la Commission européenne pour la science et la connaissance.

Le rapport de l’EURL EVCAM sur la mise au point, la validation et l’acceptation réglementaire de méthodes et techniques de substitution.

Le partenariat européen visant à promouvoir les méthodes de substitution à l’expérimentation animale, une collaboration volontaire entre la Commission européenne, des associations professionnelles européennes et des entreprises de huit secteurs industriels «qui se sont engagées à mettre en commun leurs connaissances et leurs ressources pour accélérer le développement, la validation et l’acceptation de méthodes de substitution à l’expérimentation animale».

Alternatives à l’expérimentation animale, le site web de l’Autorité européenne de sécurité des aliments (EFSA).”

Written by Clare Ferguson,

© European Union 2020 – Source : EP

As the coronavirus crisis develops, and the European Union and its Member States take ever-more stringent action, the European Parliamentary Research Service is continuing to publish papers on the various aspects of the crisis and response to it.

The swift spread of a novel coronavirus from an initial outbreak in Wuhan, China in November 2019 to pandemic proportions in just a few short months, has led to a need for emergency public health measures to save lives across the world. In the European Union (EU), healthcare organisation and provision are Member State prerogatives and responsibilities, with the EU having limited scope to act. However, referring to World Health Organization guidelines, the European Union has stepped in to play a coordinating role, complementing national policies to help countries face the common challenge.

Following a special meeting by videoconference of the Heads of State or Government of the 27 EU Member States, also attended (virtually) by the European Commission, European Central Bank and Eurogroup Presidents, as well as the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the European Commission, four priorities were agreed. Welcoming the proposals to act decisively to help national governments face the challenges posed by the spread of the virus, European Parliament President David Sassoli commented that ‘Parliament is ready to do its part to protect the lives and livelihoods of all our people. We will not give up living as Europeans.’ A second videoconference took place on 17 March, at which the leaders reaffirmed the need to act on the four areas. The regular European Council meeting planned for 26 March has now been postponed, with a further videoconference on the coronavirus response taking its place. As of 19 March, the ECB has committed to providing €750 billion to relieve government debt during the crisis, as well as €120 billion in quantitative easing measures and €20 billion in debt purchases.

The four priority areas in the EU’s response to the COVID-19 outbreak are:

1. Limiting the spread of the virus, including assessing the risk and closing external borders so that internal borders can remain open to allow the single market to function.
2. Ensuring the provision of medical equipment by ramping up production of medical devices, issuing calls for production of medical equipment, and negotiating new supplies.
3. Helping researchers to find a vaccine quickly, through existing research programmes
4. Aiding EU Member States to weather the social and economic impact of the pandemic.

At the same time, EU citizens need to be able to trust the information they receive on such a vital issue. Support has been strengthened for the Health Security Committee to provide aligned information throughout the EU on the virus. While an ‘infodemic’ of manipulated information has accompanied the the COVID-19 outbreak, the EU continues with its efforts to tackle such harmful disinformation.

EPRS publications on the topic include:

• What can the EU do to alleviate the impact of the coronavirus crisis?
• Economic impact of epidemics and pandemics
• Temporary border controls in the Schengen area
• What if we could fight coronavirus with artificial intelligence?
• Addressing health inequalities in the European Union: Concepts, action, state of play
• Treatment optimisation in drug development

• What Think Tanks are thinking: Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• What Think Tanks are thinking: Coronavirus: The latest

• ESMH Press Review, special edition on coronavirus
• Misinformation in science: How false medical news on social media miseducates our society
• How to spot when news is fake
• European Science Media Hub interviews
• European Science Media Hub articles

Written by Mar Negreiro,

© 3DDock / Shutterstock.com

Sales in the EU still predominantly take place offline – in bricks and mortar shops – and purchases are still predominantly made with cash. However, thanks to the level of convenience they offer, both online shopping and cashless electronic payments are booming and are among the key drivers of the digital transformation taking place in our economy and society. The real-time accessibility of e commerce products and their availability 24 hours a day, together with the ease of making electronic payments, are disrupting many aspects of traditional consumer shopping behaviour, which is also increasingly driven by widespread use of mobile devices and apps.

Online sales hit a record high in 2019. At the international level, China is leading in both e-commerce transactions and mobile cashless payments. However, the coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis has put countries across the world, starting with China, into extraordinary conditions, with citizens staying at home; and some sellers trying to extract the highest profit possible from the situation.

In the EU, a large majority of internet users, particularly those under the age of 45, shop online. Clothes, sports goods, travel and online content such as games, videos and music are among the most popular items.

This trend is also driven by the increase in cashless payments, which have become very popular in some countries. The numerous different cashless payment methods in existence are often highly localised. One such example, the e-wallet, is gaining particular importance, driven by the over 2 billion users it enjoyed in 2019.

On the other hand, e-commerce and the cashless society are facing a host of challenges related to cybercrime, fraud, privacy, the digital divide and pollution, among others. The coronavirus outbreak is also posing various challenges to e-commerce supply chains, many of which are based in the hardest-hit countries. However, the opportunities that e-commerce and cashless transactions afford in terms of convenience, efficiency and affordability will help them gain further ground in the years to come; their popularity among younger generations and strong EU-level policy support for digital transformation are also helping boost their prospects.

Read the complete briefing on ‘The rise of e-commerce and the cashless society‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Marcin Szczepański,

© Alfa Photo / Shutterstock.com

The digitalisation of the economy and society poses new tax policy challenges. One of the main questions is how to correctly capture value and tax businesses characterised by a reliance on intangible assets, no or insignificant physical presence in the tax jurisdictions where commercial activities are carried out (scale without mass), and a considerable user role in value creation. Current tax rules are struggling to cope with the emerging realities of these new economic models.

The European Union (EU) and other international bodies have been discussing these issues for some time. In March 2018, the EU introduced a ‘fair taxation of the digital economy’ package. It contained proposals for an interim and long-term digital tax. The European Parliament supported both proposals, widening their scope and coverage and backing integration of digital tax into the proposed Council framework on corporate taxation. However, there was no immediate political agreement in the Council. As finding a global solution at Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) level or a coordinated EU approach was not yet feasible, some Member States started implementing or designing national digital taxes. As an indication of difficulties around this issue, the introduction of these taxes in France heightened trade tensions between the EU and the United States of America, with the latter favouring a ‘voluntary’ tax system – a position which may prevent a global agreement.

Over the last few years, the OECD has nevertheless made progress on developing a global solution and proposed a two-pillar system: while the first pillar (unified approach) would grant new taxation rights and review the current profit allocation and business location-taxation rules, the second (GloBE) aims to mitigate risks stemming from the practices of profit-shifting to jurisdictions where they can be subjected to no, or very low, taxation. The EU is committed to supporting the OECD’s work, but if no solution is found by the end of 2020, it will again make a proposal for its own digital tax.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Digital taxation: State of play and way forward‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© MintArt / Shutterstock

The world is currently facing the fastest-spreading pandemic since the Spanish flu (in the aftermath of the First World War), prompting governments to take unprecedented decisions to contain this highly contagious coronavirus, which leads to COVID-19 infection. The measures taken include closing borders in some countries, encouraging telework as much as possible, and shutting schools, universities, restaurants and many other facilities, except for shops selling groceries, supermarkets and pharmacies. People are urged to stay at home and avoid physical contact with others. In a growing number of countries, confinement is being enforced.

This note offers links to recent commentaries and reports from international think tanks on the coronavirus and related issues. Earlier publications on the topic can be found in the previous item in the series, published on 11 March.

Coronavirus: Global response urgently needed
Chatham House, March 2020

How leaders can stop corona from undermining the EU
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, March 2020

Bold policies needed to counter the coronavirus recession
Centre for European Reform, March 2020

‘Whatever it takes’ must be EU member states’ Covid-19 pledge
Friends of Europe, March 2020

COVID-19 is a reminder that interconnectivity is unavoidable
Brookings Institution, March 2020

Trade policy and the fight against coronavirus
European Centre for International Political Economy, March 2020

Corona Crisis: Italy needs European solidarity – now
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, March 2020

Coronavirus: All citizens need an income support
Chatham House, March 2020

The economic policy response to COVID-19: What comes next?
Brookings Institution, March 2020

Tracking Coronavirus in countries with and without travel bans
Council on Foreign Relation, March 2020

Trump’s trade policy is hampering the US fight against COVID-19
Peterson Institute for International Economics, March 2020

The Coronavirus can make or break the Union
European Policy Centre, March 2020

Coronavirus has shattered many long-held myths about globalisation
Friends of Europe, March 2020

Europe braces for Coronavirus spread
Bertelsmann Stiftung, March 2020

Responding to the coronavirus outbreak
Clingendael, March 2020

An effective economic response to the Coronavirus in Europe
Bruegel, March 2020

The coronavirus recession deepens financial market turmoil
Atlantic Council, March 2020

Estimates of COVID-19’s fatality rate might change: And then change again
Rand Corporation, March 2020

What you need to know about the Coronavirus outbreak
Council on Foreign Relation, March 2020

Addressing the coronavirus ‘infodemic’
Atlantic Council, March 2020

Designing an effective US policy response to Coronavirus
Peterson Institute for International Economics, March 2020

What the Coronavirus emergency means for the US-Iran conflict
Atlantic Council, March 2020

International cooperation for the Coronavirus combat: Results, lessons, and way ahead
Shanghai Institutes for International Studies, March 2020

Coronavirus: The view from Italy, China, Singapore, India, and the UK
Council on Foreign Relation, March 2020

Responding to the coronavirus outbreak
Clingendael, March 2020

Global macroeconomics of coronavirus
Brookings Institution, March 2020

Covid-19 & OPEC+ collapse: Preliminary assessment of implications for energy markets, policies and geopolitical balances
Institut français des relations internationales, March 2020

The Coronavirus outbreak could disrupt the U.S. drug supply
Council on Foreign Relations, March 2020

Coronavirus, campaigns, and connectivity
Brookings Institution, March 2020

Covid-19 & OPEC+ collapse: Preliminary assessment of implications for energy markets, policies and geopolitical balances
Institut français des relations internationales, March 2020

The World Health Organization
Council on Foreign Relation, March 2020

Le coronavirus, une géopolitique des peurs
Institut Montaigne, March 2020

COVID-19 is a reminder that interconnectivity is unavoidable
Brookings Institution, March 2020

How Europe should manage the Coronavirus-induced crisis
Centre for European Policy Studies, March 2020

Uncharted territory: Italy’s response to the coronavirus
European Council on Foreign Relations, March 2020

Three macroeconomic issues and Covid-19
Bruegel, March 2020

Only the coronavirus can convince Trump of the virtues of international cooperation
Bruegel, March 2020

An effective economic response to the Coronavirus in Europe
Bruegel, March 2020

What if the rest of Europe follows Italy’s coronavirus fate?
Bruegel, March 2020

Three macroeconomic issues and Covid-19
Bruegel, March 2020

Ill will: Populism and the coronavirus
European Council on Foreign Relation, March 2020

Coronavirus forces colleges online: Will learning ever be the same?
Rand Corporation, March 2020

Coronavirus and the labor market
Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry, March 2020

Coronavirus outbreak intensifies: Q&A with RAND experts
Rand Corporation, March 2020

The consequences of the Coronavirus epidemic for the EU economy
Polish Institute for International Affairs, March 2020

Will China learn from the COVID-19 epidemic?
East Asia Forum, March 2020

Coronavirus, telemedicine, and dustbusters
Rand Corporation, March 2020

How Europe should manage the Coronavirus-induced crisis
Centre for European Policy Studies, March 2020

Pour une Europe de la santé. Chronique d’une épidémie, crise sanitaire, perturbant fortement l’économie
Fondation Robert Schuman, March 2020

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

Written by Nicole Scholz, Angelos Delivorias and Marianna Pari,

© Lightspring / Shutterstock.com

The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak has now been declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization. Alleviating the human effects of the crisis is paramount, but repercussions are being felt across many sectors. European Union institutions are unanimous in calling for solidarity among Member States, and for Europe to offer support, within its remit, to its Member States in their response to the common challenge.

On 10 March 2020, Heads of State or Government of the EU countries held a videoconference on COVID-19, to discuss how to coordinate the EU-level response. EU leaders stressed the need for a joint European approach and close coordination with the European Commission. Priorities were identified, to be followed up on ‘at all levels immediately’. The measures that are – or could be – envisaged range across different policy areas. As an immediate response, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen formed a coronavirus response team. Further measures were announced in a European coronavirus response on 13 March 2020.

Planned – and potential – health and preparedness measures include reinforcing the EU’s role in joint procurement, bolstering cooperation in disease management and control, and potentially widening the remit of the European reference networks. Greater controls on people crossing external EU borders are also proposed. Monetary, budgetary and macroeconomic measures include, for instance, those taken to ease the impact of the coronavirus emergency on the aviation industry. Moreover, the EU and the Member States, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund can also take steps to help people and firms. The EU budget has been mobilised to provide funds to reinforce preparedness and containment measures, as well as research into the virus. Furthermore, cross-border health threats, such as that posed by COVID‑19, could be taken into account when shaping the multiannual financial framework for 2021-2027.

Read the complete briefing on ‘What can the EU do to alleviate the impact of the coronavirus crisis?‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Costica Dumbrava,

© M-SUR/shutterstock

Free movement across internal borders is one of the EU’s most important achievements, with important benefits for EU citizens. The Schengen Borders Code (or Schengen Code) specifies the conditions under which Member States can introduce temporary checks at their internal borders in cases of serious threats to public policy or internal security. The Code was revised in 2017 in order to strengthen the EU’s external borders and to help cope with unprecedented migratory pressure and cross-border security threats. A Commission legislative proposal to further update the Schengen Code in order to tighten up the rules on temporary border controls is currently with the co-legislators. The recent coronavirus outbreak has pushed several Member States to reintroduce border controls at some of the EU’s internal borders in an attempt to contain the spread of the virus.

The Schengen Code

The Schengen Code lays down the common rules governing the management of internal and external EU borders, including rules and procedures concerning the exceptional introduction of border checks at internal borders. There are currently three cases in which Member States can introduce temporary border checks at their internal borders on grounds of a serious threat to public policy or internal security: (1) in the case of a foreseeable threat (e.g. a special event such as a sporting competition); (2) in the case of an immediate threat; and (3) in the situation of persistent serious deficiencies relating to external borders.

Foreseeable threat to public policy or internal security

According to Article 25 of the Schengen Code, a Member State can reintroduce exceptional border controls at all or specific parts of its internal borders if there is a serious threat to public policy or internal security. Any such measures should be exceptional, temporary and proportionate. If the serious threat to public policy or internal security in the Member State concerned persists, the period can be prolonged by renewable periods of 30 days, up to a maximum six months. The Member State concerned must notify the Commission and the other Member States at least four weeks before taking action, unless the circumstances giving rise to the measures arise within a shorter timeframe. The notification must specify the reasons, scope and duration of the measures. The information must also be submitted to the European Parliament and the Council. The Commission is supposed to issue an opinion after consulting the other Member States.

Immediate threat to public policy or internal security

Under Article 28 of the Code, a Member State can introduce immediate border controls at internal borders if there is a serious threat to public policy or internal security. This measure must be exceptional and is to be limited to up to ten days. If the serious threat to public policy or internal security persists, the period may be prolonged by renewable periods of 20 days, up to maximum of two months. The Member State concerned must notify the Commission and the other Member States immediately, providing information about the reasons, scope and duration of the measures. The Commission must inform the European Parliament immediately and, after consulting the other Member States, should issue an opinion.

Persistent serious deficiencies relating to external border control

Under Article 29 of the Code, a Member State may introduce temporary border checks at internal borders when there are persistent serious deficiencies in the external border management of a Member State, as demonstrated during a Schengen evaluation. This period could be prolonged up to three times if the exceptional circumstances persist, up to a limit of maximum two years. Acting on a proposal from the Commission, the Council can issue a recommendation for one or more Member States to reintroduce border controls at all or specific parts of their borders. The Member State(s) concerned must then notify the other Member States, the European Parliament and the Commission before reintroducing border controls, or inform the Commission in writing of their reasons for not implementing the Council’s recommendation. The Commission must present the European Parliament and the Council with a report on the functioning of the area without internal border controls at least once a year. This report must include a list of all decisions taken to reintroduce border controls at internal borders during the relevant year.

Cases of border checks reinstated at internal borders

The unprecedented inflow of migrants and asylum-seekers that peaked in 2015 put great strain on the EU’s external borders, leading a number of Members States to reintroduce controls along some of their borders with other Member States. While justified by the need to cope with an exceptional situation, these measures have disrupted the functioning of the Schengen area, generating significant economic, social and political costs. According to an EPRS study from 2016, the economic cost for a two-year suspension of Schengen by all participating states would range from €25 billion to €50 billion, while indefinite suspension of Schengen would cost between €100 billion and €230 billion over 10 years.  Currently there are six Schengen Member States that have temporarily reintroduced border controls along parts of their borders with other Member States in connection with foreseeable threats to public policy or internal security (mainly terrorism threats, secondary movements by irregular migrants and special events).

Following the outbreak of the coronavirus (COVID-19), a number of Member States have adopted exceptional measures aimed at containing the spreadof the virus, including measures to reintroduce border checks or close their borders with other Member States. To prevent disruption of the supply of essential goods and medical staff in the EU, the European Commission has adopted an export authorisation scheme for protective equipment and has presented Member States with guidelines on border measures.

Current cases of internal border controls (for foreseeable events)
Norway (12 November 2019 – 12 May 2020)
Sweden (12 November 2019 – 12 May 2020)
Denmark (12 November 2019 – 12 May 2020)
Germany (12 November 2019 – 12 May 2020)
Austria (12 November 2019 – 12 May 2020)
France (31 October 2019 – 30 April 2020) Revision of the Schengen Code

The Schengen Code was revised in 2017 in the context of measures to strengthen external borders to allow for mandatory systematic checks on all people crossing the EU’s external borders, including the verification of biometric information in the relevant databases.

In September 2017, the Commission presented a proposal for a regulation to amend the rules applicable to the temporary reintroduction of checks at internal borders, aiming to adapt the maximum periods for these measures in order to enable Member States to respond adequately to serious threats to public policy or internal security. The proposal also introduces further procedural safeguards (e.g. an obligation to conduct ‘assessments’) to ensure that the use of internal border checks remains exceptional and proportionate, thus encouraging Member States to use police checks and cooperation instead of internal border controls.

European Parliament position

The European Parliament has constantly reiterated its commitment to safeguarding the Schengen area. In its resolution of 30 May 2018 on the annual report on the functioning of the Schengen area, it condemned ‘the continued reintroduction of internal border checks as this undermines the basic principles of the Schengen area’, and called for the establishment of substantial procedural safeguards, in particular to maintain a strict time limit on the reintroduction of checks at internal borders.

In its legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation amending the rules applicable to the temporary reintroduction of border control, adopted in April 2019, Parliament reiterated that the Schengen area is one of the Union’s main achievements and stressed the need for a common response to situations seriously affecting the public policy or internal security of the Schengen area. Parliament maintained that the temporary reintroduction of border controls at internal borders should occur only in exceptional circumstances and as a last resort. While it agreed with the Commission that in the event of a long-term threat there should be a possibility to prolong internal border controls beyond six months, on an exceptional basis, the European Parliament maintained that the prolongation must not lead to a further extension of temporary border controls beyond one year (the Commission proposed a two-year maximum). Having adopted its position at first reading, Parliament is now waiting for Council to set out its position.

Read this ‘At a glance’ on ‘Temporary border controls in the Schengen area‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Izabela Cristina Bacian,

© Shutterstock

Given the unprecedented circumstances surrounding the COVID-19 outbreak and the potential EU-wide ramifications, Heads of State or Government of the 27 EU Member States welcomed the initiative to hold a special meeting by video-conference on 10 March 2020. European Council President Charles Michel expressed his sympathy for all those citizens affected by the disease and, in particular, for Italy, the country most affected so far. The Member States discussed the COVID-19 outbreak and agreed on four lines of action to contain the spread of the disease. The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Central Bank, Christine Lagarde, the President of the Eurogroup, Mario Centeno, and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the European Commission, Josep Borrell, also took part in the discussion.

The format of the meeting was exceptional in several aspects. It is noteworthy that, for the first time, a video-conference call, bringing all EU Heads of State or Government together, as well as many representatives from other institutions, was organised in such a formal manner. The meeting was followed by a regular press conference, and resulted in the President of the European Council releasing its conclusions. Given the very productive outcome of the meeting, it is possible that such a format could be used more frequently in the future.

Following the discussion, EU leaders identified four priorities: 1) Limiting the spread of the virus; 2) Provision of medical equipment; 3) Promotion of research; and 4) Tackling the socio-economic consequences. Member States agreed that all measures taken should be based on science and be proportionate, and that all relevant information would be shared through existing coordination mechanisms. It will be essential that medical equipment be made available, and the European Commission will pursue joint public procurement, prioritising protective equipment and respiratory devices. Member States called for more research, including towards the development of a vaccine. The Commission has already mobilised €140 million of public and private funding for research on vaccines, diagnosis and treatment. Moreover, it will assemble a team of epidemiologists and virologists from different Member States to agree guidelines to apply at European level.

The Heads of State or Government agreed to act in a coordinated manner to address the socio-economic impact of the virus outbreak on specific affected sectors and employees, in particular, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). In this context, a flexible application of EU rules on state aid and the Stability and Growth Pact would be needed. The Commission will propose concrete measures before the Eurogroup meeting on 16 March 2020. Lastly, the Commission will bring forward a Corona Response Investment Initiative to support health systems, SMEs, the labour market and other vulnerable sectors. The Commission intends to make €7.5 billion in liquidity available in the coming weeks, which could be increased to €25 billion.

Regarding the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on the aviation industry, legislation will be proposed to temporarily loosen the airport slot usage obligations on airlines under EU law. Under the EU Airport Slots Regulation (EEC 95/93), airlines are required to use 80 % of their allocated slots, or face losing their right to such slots in future seasons. The European Council will follow up on all of these issues during its meeting on 26-27 March 2020.

Read this ‘At a glance’ on ‘Outcome of the video-conference call of EU Heads of State or Government on10 March 2020‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© Oleksii Synelnykov / Shutterstock

The highly contagious new coronavirus, known as COVID-19, is spreading globally at a very rapid pace, having infected about 114 000 people and killed nearly 4 000 at the time of writing, according to the situation report from the World Health Organization (WHO). It has sparked fears of a global pandemic with unpredictable consequences, including significant potential economic damage. China, Italy, Iran, South Korea, Japan, and now France, Germany and Spain, are the countries most affected by the virus. These and other governments are facing a very major challenge to stop the spread of the disease and ward off a deep economic crisis.

This note offers links to recent commentaries and reports from international think tanks on the coronavirus and related issues.

How Europe should manage the Coronavirus-induced crisis
Centre for European Policy Studies, March 2020

Uncharted territory: Italy’s response to the coronavirus
European Council on Foreign Relations, March 2020

How to fight the economic fallout from the Coronavirus
Chatham House, March 2020

Designing an effective US policy response to Coronavirus
Peterson Institute for International Economics, March 2020

To save the Italian economy from the Coronavirus, Rome prescribes a stimulus
Bruegel, March 2020

Ill will: Populism and the Coronavirus
European Council on Foreign Relations, March 2020

Economics in the time of COVID-19
Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry, March 2020

Coronavirus outbreak intensifies: Q&A with RAND experts
Rand Corporation, March 2020

China and Japan sharing weal and woe in the face of epidemic
China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, March 2020

ROK’s COVID-19 epidemic tendency and Sino-ROK cooperation
China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, March 2020
The Coronavirus outbreak could disrupt the U.S. drug supply
Council on Foreign Relations, March 2020

A Japan divided over COVID-19 control
East Asia Forum, March 2020

Will Covid-19 topple China’s one-party regime?
German Marshall Fund, March 2020

Coronavirus is already changing the world
Atlantic Council, March 2020

What should a fiscal response to a COVID-19 outbreak look like?
Brookings Institution, March 2020

Russia’s not ready for Coronavirus
Council on Foreign Relations, March 2020
Governments and businesses brace for Coronavirus impact
Atlantic Council, March 2020

The Coronavirus is exposing the limits of populism
Brookings Institution, March 2020

Africa confronts falling oil prices amid Coronavirus
Council on Foreign Relations, March 2020

Coronavirus and the oil market: The effects thus far and what to expect next
Atlantic Council, March 2020

The Coronavirus will reveal hidden vulnerabilities in complex global supply chains
Brookings Institution, March 2020

The impact of Coronavirus on Gulf economies
Atlantic Council, March 2020

If Italy gets sick, the whole world catches a cold
American Enterprise Institute, March 2020

COVID-19: Tips for a saner digital diet in these viral times
Heinrich Böll Stiftung, March 2020

The cruise that escaped COVID-19 outbreak
China Institute of International Studies, March 2020

The Coronavirus outbreak is the shape of things to come
Council on Foreign Relations, February 2020

China’s fight against COVID-19 epidemic: A decisive campaign
Shanghai Institutes for International Studies, February 2020

The Coronavirus and freedom of expression in China: Not so fast
Istituto Affari Internazionali, February 2020

What you need to know about the Coronavirus outbreak
Council on Foreign Relations, February 2020

As the Coronavirus spreads, can the EU afford to close its borders?
Bruegel, February 2020

China and the geopolitics of the Coronavirus
Clingendael, February 2020

How to save lives in a COVID-19 pandemic
Resolve to Save Lives, February 2020

Companies must move supply chains further from China
Bruegel, February 2020

Preparing for the Coronavirus and other epidemics in Africa
Brookings Institution, February 2020

Preparing for pandemics such as Coronavirus: Will we ever break the vicious cycle of panic and neglect?
Brookings Institution, February 2020

Epidemic tests China’s supply chain dominance
Bruegel, February 2020

China’s Coronavirus will not lead to recession but to stimulus and even more debt
Bruegel, February 2020

Read this briefing on ‘Coronavirus (COVID-19)‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Mihalis Kritikos,

© Shutterstock

Analytics have changed the way disease outbreaks are tracked and managed, thereby saving lives. The international community is currently focused on the 2019-2020 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, first identified in Wuhan, China. As it spreads, raising fears of a worldwide pandemic, international organisations and scientists are using artificial intelligence (AI) to track the epidemic in real-time, to effectively predict where the virus might appear next and develop an effective response.

On 31 December 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) received the first report of a suspected novel coronavirus (COVID-19) in Wuhan. Amid concerns that the global response is fractured and uncoordinated, the WHO declared the outbreak a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) under the International Health Regulations (IHR) on 30 January 2020. Warnings about the novel coronavirus spreading beyond China were raised by AI systems more than a week before official information about the epidemic was released by international organisations. A health monitoring start-up correctly predicted the spread of COVID‑19, using natural-language processing and machine learning. Decisions during such an outbreak need to be made on an urgent basis, often in the context of scientific uncertainty, fear, distrust, and social and institutional disruption. How can AI technologies be used to manage this type of global health emergency, without undermining protection of fundamental values and human rights?

Potential impacts and developments

In the case of COVID-19, AI has been used mostly to help detect whether people have novel coronavirus through the detection of visual signs of COVID-19 on images from lung CT scans; to monitor, in real time, changes in body temperature through the use of wearable sensors; and to provide an open-source data platform to track the spread of the disease. AI could process vast amounts of unstructured text data to predict the number of potential new cases by area and which types of populations will be most at risk, as well as evaluate and optimise strategies for controlling the spread of the epidemic. Other AI applications can deliver medical supplies by drone, disinfect patient rooms and scan approved drug databases (for other illnesses) that might also work against COVID-19. AI technologies have been harnessed to come up with new molecules that could serve as potential medications or even accelerate the time taken to predict the virus’s RNA secondary structure. A series of risk assessment algorithms for COVID-19 for use in healthcare settings have been developed, including an algorithm for the main actions that need to be followed for managing contacts of probable or confirmed COVID-19 cases, as developed by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control.

Certain AI applications can also detect fake news about the disease by applying machine-learning techniques for mining social media information, tracking down words that are sensational or alarming, and identifying which online sources are deemed authoritative for fighting what has been called an infodemic. Facebook, Google, Twitter and TikTok have partnered with the WHO to review and expose false information about COVID-19.

In public health emergency response management, derogating from an individual’s rights of privacy, non-discrimination and freedom of movement in the name of the urgency of the situation can sometimes take the form of restrictive measures that include domestic containment strategies without due process, or medical examination without informed consent. In the case of COVID-19, AI applications such as the use of facial recognition to track people not wearing masks in public, or AI-based fever detection systems, as well as the processing of data collected on digital platforms and mobile networks to track a person’s recent movements, have contributed to draconian enforcement of restraining measures for the confinement of the outbreak for unspecified durations. Chinese search giant Baidu has developed a system using infrared and facial recognition technology that scans and takes photographs of more than 200 people per minute at the Qinghe railway station in Beijing. In Moscow, authorities are using automated facial recognition technology to scan surveillance camera footage in an attempt to identify recent arrivals from China, placed under quarantine for fear of COVID‑19 infection and not expected to enter the station. Finally, Chinese authorities are deploying drones to patrol public places, conduct thermal imaging, or to track people violating quarantine rules.

Anticipatory policy-making

As a governance system, the WHO has limited enforcement tools, whereas its surveillance system is fully dependent on states’ willingness to meet their good-faith reporting requirements. However, reporting compliance remains low, raising questions about the ability of low and middle-income countries (LMICs) to meet IHR obligations in the absence of adequate resourcing and financial support and about the effectiveness of the main legal framework of ‘essential’ capacities required by nations to prevent, detect and rapidly respond to public health threats. However, AI technologies have the potential to challenge the state’s monopoly of information control and operationalise the WHO’s right to receive reports from non-state sources, particularly if and when those reports contradict reports provided by the state.

The development of vaccines and drugs in response to public health emergencies also presents particular legal and ethical challenges. The European Commission and the European Medicines Agency have put procedures in place to speed up the assessment and authorisation of vaccines for use during a public health emergency, either via the pandemic preparedness vaccine marketing authorisation or the emergency procedure. The EMA recently activated its plan for managing emerging health threats, whereas the Commission and the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) launched fast-track calls for proposals for the development of therapeutics and diagnostics to combat COVID-19 infections. Using the paragraph 6 system, provided by the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), countries are allowed to import cheaper generics made under compulsory licensing if they are unable to manufacture the medicines themselves. Adopting measures to counteract the potentially adverse health impact of IP protection and sharing preliminary research results with all actors in the response is a crucial component of any integrated global alert and response system for epidemics that aims at making the benefits of research available to the local population without undue delay. AI’s capacity to quickly search large databases and process vast amounts of medical data can essentially accelerate the development of a drug that can fight COVID-19 but also raises questions about the criteria used for the selection of the relevant data sets and possible algorithmic bias. Most public health systems lack the capacity to collect the data needed to train algorithms that would be reflective of the needs of local populations, take local practice patterns into account and ensure equity and fairness.

As public health emergencies can be deeply socially divisive, stretch public-health capacities and limit rights to privacy and informational self-determination, it is important for policy-makers to rationally consider the ethics of their crisis-management policies. Although the Siracusa Principles may allow for the provision of limitation, or derogation, from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), confining the outbreak of a lethal disease in emergency contexts should be ethically justifiable, necessary and proportionate. In all cases, least liberty-infringing alternatives should be used to achieve the public health goal. The WHO guidance for managing ethical issues in infectious disease outbreaks and the guidance on ethical issues in research in global health emergencies could help to ensure appropriate ethical oversight and collaboration, to help combat social stigmatisation of those affected, or perceived to be affected, by the disease.

However, given the absence of a comprehensive human rights framework that would underpin effective outbreak surveillance at the international level, the management of the risks associated with infectious diseases is likely to remain an ongoing challenge for global health governance. The massive use of AI tracking and surveillance tools in the context of this outbreak, combined with the current fragmentation in the ethical governance of AI, could pave the way for a wider and more permanent use of these surveillance technologies, leading to a situation known as ‘mission creep’. Coordinated action on inclusive risk assessment and strict interpretation of public health legal exemptions, such as that envisaged in Article 9 of the General Data Protection Regulation, will therefore be key to ensuring the responsible use of this disruptive technology during public health emergencies. Accordingly, preventing AI use from contributing to the establishment of new forms of automated social control, which could persist long after the epidemic subsides, must be addressed in ongoing legislative initiatives on AI at EU level.

Read this ‘At a glance’ on ‘What if we could fight coronavirus with artificial intelligence?‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© Waraporn Wattanakul / Shutterstock

The European Green Deal is a key policy plank of the new European Commission led by President Ursula von der Leyen. It is a package of measures that aims to radically cut emissions of greenhouse gases while creating jobs in clean industries. Its main objectives are for the EU to become climate neutral by 2050, radically reduce other types of pollution, help European companies to become world leaders in green products, and offer aid to regions affected by this economic transition.

This note offers links to recent commentaries, studies and reports from international think tanks on the Green Deal and climate issues. More studies on the topics can be found in a previous item from these series, published in early December 2019.

Europe’s Green Deal must reach beyond its borders
Bruegel, February 2020

Digging the trenches: The EU and the Green Deal
European Council on Foreign Relations, February 2020

Five things to look for in the Green New Deal
World Resources Institute, February 2020

The EU Green Deal can go global, but ‘climate diplomacy’ won’t be easy
Friends of Europe, February 2020

The European Green Deal: Winning the climate change
Centre international de formation européenne, February 2020

Berlin will make or break the European Green Deal
Bruegel, February 2020

There is no Green Deal without a just transition
Instituto Affari Internazionali, February 2020

Low carbon energy transition as a driver and solution to energy poverty and injustice
Centre international de formation européenne, February 2020

Are financial markets aligned with climate action? New evidence from the Paris Agreement
LCE, Gratham Instutute on Climate Change, Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy February 2020

How to implement a WTO-compatible full border carbon adjustment as an important part of the European Green Deal
Österreichische Gesellschaft für Europapolitik, January 2020

European green finance is expanding, a discount on bank capital would discredit it
Bruegel, January 2020

What businesses can do for the European Green Deal
Jacquest Delors Institute, January 2020

The just transition fund: 4 benchmarks for success
E3G, January 2020

Climat: l’Europe a brûlé ses vaisseaux
Terra Nova, January 2020

The colour of money: Green deals, cohesion funds, and the populist challenge
European Council on Foreign Relations, January 2020

Climate laws in Europe
Ecologic Institute, January 2020

A trillion reasons to scrutinise the Green Deal Investment Plan
Bruegel, January 2020

How the European Green Deal will succeed or fail
E3G, December 2019

The Green Deal will make or break Europe
European Council on Foreign Relations, December 2019

Can Europe offer a Green Deal to the world?
Centre for European Policy Studies, December 2019

EU trade policy: Global enforcer for the European Green Deal
European Policy Centre, December 2019

Making the political weather to combat climate change
Centre for European Policy Studies, December 2019

Ein flexibler Kompromiss: Der Europäische Rat trägt den European Green Deal mit
Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, December 2019

The European Green Deal needs a reformed fiscal framework
Bruegel, December 2019

The European Green Deal: A promising start and a long road ahead
European Policy Centre, December 2019

Delivering climate neutrality: Accelerating EU decarbonisation with research and innovation funding
E3G, December 2019

Boosting EU climate finance: Mitigate more without neglecting adaptation in poorer countries
European Centre for Development Policy Management, December 2019

European Green Deal: Bring in the Western Balkans
European Council on Foreign Relations, December 2019

Five pillars for a CO2-free industry in Europe and Italy
Instituto Affairi Internazionali, December 2019

EU climate policy as a challenge for Central Europe
E3G, December 2019

A budget to address the climate emergency
Heinrich Böll Stiftung, December 2019

Raising the game on Paris Alignment: Six memos on the multilateral development banks’ Paris alignment approach
New Climate Institute, December 2019

National laws and policies on climate change Adaptation: A global review
Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, December 2019

Social consequences of climate change: Building climate friendly and resilient communities via transition from planned to market economies
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, December 2019

Read this briefing on ‘The European Green Deal‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Gianluca Quaglio with Sophie Millar,

Drug development: heavily ‘drug-focused’ rather than ‘patient-focused’

©/Lightspring/Shutterstock.com

For a drug to be prescribed to a patient, it must first be rigorously tested for efficacy and safety and subsequently be approved by relevant authoritative bodies, such as the European Medicines Agency (EMA). However, it has been underlined that the current framework of drug development is heavily ‘drug-focused’ rather than ‘patient-focused’. This means that the end users of the drug, the patients, are not generally placed at the centre of the drug development paradigm. In other words, achieving regulatory approval is seen as the ultimate goal, eclipsing somewhat the use of a drug in its real-world setting. This is not helped by the lack of regulatory demands or incentives for gathering such real world data.

Clinical trials generally recruit a very specific set of participants with small variability, who do not ultimately fully reflect the target population to receive the novel therapy under investigation. The resulting ‘research gap’ highlights the disconnect between the pre-approval development of medicines and their post-approval use in real-world contexts (Figure 1). In Europe, most clinical research focuses primarily on drug development for regulatory approval, instead of addressing patient and public-health needs.

Figure 1 – Research gap between drug development and real world healthcare delivery ©Pot Regnier/STOA

Establishing treatment optimisation as part of personalised medicine development

A shift in drug development is emerging, with momentum towards greater recognition of precision or personalised medicine and patient-centred approaches. The Council of the European Union, while accepting that there is no common definition of the term precision (personalised) medicine, noted that this is generally understood to refer to a medical model that uses the characterisation of individuals’ phenotypes and genotypes to tailor the right therapeutic strategy for the right person at the right time and/or to determine the predisposition to disease and/or to deliver a targeted prevention strategy (Council of the EU, 2015).

A patient-focused approach, termed treatment optimisation or applied research, would bridge the gap between the first stage (regulatory approval) and the second stage (real-world application) of drug development, giving strength to the direction of personalised medicine development.

Numerous drugs are authorised on the market, with limited knowledge on how to use them for dose, sequence, combination and duration of treatment. The treatment optimisation approach could answer questions such as: whether a lower dose of the drug could produce the same results with potentially fewer toxic side effects; how the drug performs in terms of patient-relevant outcome measures such as quality of life and overall survival; and long-term use effects. There is therefore a need for investigation of the optimal way to use medicines.

Role of key stakeholders in the current drug development system

Developing a drug and bringing it into clinical practice is a complex process involving multiple partners in several areas, namely: (i) pharmaceutical industry; (ii) regulatory agencies; (iii) payers (in healthcare, this term generally refers to entities other than patients that finance or reimburse the cost of health services); (iv) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies; (iv) clinicians; (v) patients; (iv) academia. Although they have a common goal (the benefit of the patient), they work with different priorities and methodology. For example, while pharmaceutical companies seek – among other things – profit, researchers want to develop their medical tools and academic career, regulators assess the therapeutic efficacy, and payers make sure that the medical innovations are worth the public investment (Figure 2).

©Pot Regnier/STOA

The presence of different actors in the drug development process does not help to narrow the research gap between the first stage and the second stage of drug development.

The STOA study

How do we move to more patient and society-centred drug development, taking all stakeholders’ perspectives and needs into account? It is about bridging the gap between two dimensions that are often misunderstood: (i) efficacy, which is demonstrated under controlled conditions in classical clinical drug trials, and (ii) effectiveness, defined as how a drug performs in the real world of widely varying patients and doctors in different types of hospitals and clinics.

To provide direction in enabling the implementation of treatment optimisation, 26 experts across 5 stakeholder groups were interviewed for a study carried out by the European Parliament Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA) and entitled ‘Treatment optimisation in drug development’. The report was carried out in collaboration with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). The interviewees represented patient organisations, regulator and payer authorities, the pharmaceutical industry, health technology assessment agencies, and academic clinicians.

The majority of interviewees agreed that there are insufficient patient-centred approaches and real-world evidence, and a lack of adequate patient involvement during the design stage of clinical trials. The report highlights that both patient-centred and drug-centred approaches are needed and should indeed complement each other.

A number of important recommendations from interviewees regarding how to implement treatment optimisation strategies emerged, covering the process, funding, timing, design and setting for the conduct of studies. Interviewees either proposed that the process should be led by a consortium of all key stakeholders, or by academia and not-for-profit organisations with input from industry (e.g. drug supply). There was some agreement on funding, in that it should come from a combination of public and private sources. Setting-wise, interviewees either did not have a strong preference (case-by-case basis), or suggested that it should take place at a national level with possible international oversight.

In regard to the design of treatment optimisation methods, the following key features emerged from the interviews: fewer inclusion and exclusion criteria; standard of care or best available treatment as comparators; use of patient-relevant outcome measures; and publication of all results. No clear consensus was reached on blinding (whether participants or study staff should know what treatment is being followed) or randomisation.

Policy options arising from this study centred on when in the drug development ‘pipeline’ the treatment optimisation process should take place, and by which legal mechanism. Three main policy options emerged. Briefly, these were: (i) making the conduct of treatment optimisation studies part of the requirements that manufacturers have to satisfy in order to obtain marketing authorisation for their products; (ii) including treatment optimisation studies as part of the post-authorisation commitments; and (iii) conditional reimbursement mechanisms employed to compel the manufacturers to carry out treatment optimisation studies.

Whatever policy approach prevails, it is clear that significant political effort will be needed for the current legislative frameworks to be modified, at both European and national level.

Written by Marketa Pape,

© MNBB Studio / Shutterstock.com

Transport is a strategic sector of the EU economy. Essential to ensuring free movement, it enables people and goods to overcome distances, borders and natural barriers, directly affecting the everyday lives of all EU citizens. Maintaining the flow of goods from producers and manufacturers to consumers makes efficient transport systems a backbone of European integration. For the single market to function well in all regions, the EU needs sustainable, efficient and fully interconnected transport networks.

As the demand for transport services grows, reducing transport emissions and negative impacts on human health and the environment has become one of the main challenges. New technologies, such as digitalisation, and connected and automated mobility, open new possibilities to improve transport safety, security and efficiency, and to reduce emissions, but also transform the employment in the sector in terms of working conditions and required skills. Collaborative economy developments, such as car-sharing and bike-sharing services are changing user behaviour and mobility patterns. EU transport policy needs to help the sector cut emissions drastically by running on less and cleaner energy, utilise modern infrastructure, and reduce its impact on the environment.

The new President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, has put transport on a fast track towards becoming decarbonised and digital. This transformation is to be a key part of her European Green Deal and ‘making Europe fit for the digital age’ priorities. In 2020, the Commission will propose a ‘climate law’, committing the EU to becoming climate neutral by 2050. The European Council has endorsed this objective and Parliament had already called for ambitious goals and a corresponding long-term EU budget. While concrete steps towards this ambitious goal remain to be defined, it will require a step change to make transport modern, sustainable and decarbonised.

Read the complete Briefing on ‘EU policies – Delivering for citizens: Transport policy ‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘Transport policy‘ on YouTube.

Written by Philip Boucher,

© Shutterstock

The world of work is regularly disrupted by technology development. From mass production to word processing, innovations have regularly transformed our working lives and, with them, the broader economic system. Artificial intelligence (AI) is the latest in a long line of such technologies. What would happen if AI worked just as well as (or perhaps better than) humans, without taking holidays, getting sick, joining unions or drawing salaries?

AI is defined as systems that ‘display intelligent behaviour by analysing their environment and taking actions – with some degree of autonomy – to achieve specific goals’. In the context of employment, AI could support workers in some tasks, and replace them in others, while offering productivity gains and, potentially, creating new jobs. A fair distribution of costs and benefits depends upon careful management of the rise of AI in the workplace.

Potential impacts and developments

If automation is often directed at ‘dull, dirty and dangerous’ tasks, AI may be stretching the definition of what counts as dull. As they become more capable, AI applications start to perform tasks that may be repetitive and labour intensive, but still require advanced skills and training. For example, AI can now be used to review legal texts. Since human lawyers are still needed to oversee and make use of this work, the result is task displacement and a reduction in the labour needed to do the same amount of work. This could translate into job losses, which might be compensated by lower costs leading to more demand for work, as well as new jobs in the creation and management of automated systems. Estimates vary wildly about how jobs will be created, transformed and lost. Some say 14 % of jobs could be automated, others say 47 %. Digitalisation has created 2 million jobs in the EU over the last 10 years and might continue to create new ones, but this is not automatic. Given the scale and uncertainty of the risks and opportunities, discussions quickly turn to the distribution of costs and benefits.

Several scenarios have emerged. For the pessimists, AI will lead to more unequal societies, as those who can perform valuable tasks or have a stake in the means of production grow wealthy, while the rest face unemployment and poverty. Unlike previous waves of automation, workers lose their role in the production system and, with it, their negotiating position, leading to the emergence of an irrelevant underclass. For the optimists, however, job obsolescence is not a problem if the very concept of employment is also made obsolete. It has been suggested that AI could take over almost all jobs, allowing us to build a ‘Digital Athens‘, in which robots take the unenviable role of slaves, liberating people to occupy themselves exclusively with interpersonal, creative, leisure and sporting activities. Some might choose to work, for satisfaction or additional payment, in technology development or roles where human contact is central, such as providing social care. These two visions appear to be in opposition, but have also been combined into a single vision in which a few countries profit from AI development and provide for their citizens, while others fall behind, leading to pockets of extreme wealth and extreme poverty in different parts of the world.

These scenarios are deliberately provocative, compelling us to reflect upon how AI development and its impacts should be managed. There are many social and technical differences between historic waves of technology development, and it would be reckless to rely upon a few trite observations to simply assume that AI will create as many jobs as it displaces, or that the affected workers will find their way and ultimately be grateful for the transitions that upend their lives. For this reason, it is important to reflect upon the impacts of AI on employment and prepare appropriate responses.

Anticipatory policy-making

The resolution on civil law rules on robotics, adopted by the European Parliament (EP) in 2017, highlighted potential skills shortages, gender inequality issues and the need to ensure the long-term sufficiency of social security systems. A 2018 EP resolution on digitalisation for development highlighted that digital strategies should be aligned with initiatives on education, equality and empowerment. A 2019 resolution on industrial policy in the context of AI highlighted the need for new programmes for education for all ages, as well as training and reskilling initiatives that engage the private sector and the existing workforce.

Along these lines, a range of measures could be taken to ensure that the workers of today and tomorrow have the skills they need to navigate their professional lives, and that society has the skills and capabilities needed to exploit the opportunities for beneficial development of AI. To ensure that the disruption is mobilised to reverse rather than exacerbate social inequalities, such programmes should include initiatives to reduce digital divides, embrace diversity and ensure an equitable distribution of costs and benefits.

Curriculums for the digital age. Even without specific reference to AI development, it is clear that students will benefit from learning computer science and programming. While this will be important for many students’ future careers, it will be valuable for everyone’s ability to navigate and understand their increasingly digital lives. These disciplines could be introduced at an earlier age and for a greater portion of time than today, and could also be combined with other disciplines, for example by applying programming skills to assignments in the sciences and humanities. As job markets are expected to change more rapidly in the future, the next generation of employees may benefit from learning more transferable skills and from ‘learning to learn’. This could be achieved through a greater focus on skill acquisition and problem solving in school curricula. AI training could also be included in the university curriculum for future lawyers, doctors and other professionals who may need to work closely with the technology as their careers advance.

Continued learning for employees. Substantial retraining for mid-career workers would help employers and employees alike to manage transitions in the nature of work and the skills required to flourish. However, once people start their careers, further education is usually limited to either very short courses offered by employers or longer programmes targeting unemployed people. The concept and delivery of continued learning could be renewed to support more proactive retraining that anticipates changing needs during employment. This could include creating new ways of delivering, certifying and financing mid-career retraining that is delivered ‘on-the-job’ with support from universities and professional institutes.

New career roles. It is easier to see how AI can displace current jobs than it is to imagine those it may create. When opportunities for new roles emerge, support could be offered to help employers develop them into established career paths. For example, digital advisors could help users manage their privacy settings, hold service providers to account when rules and agreements are breached, and advise either of them on new risks and liabilities. This and many other career paths require a particular blend of skills (legal, technical and communication), as well as broad recognition and trust. To support the flourishing of such roles, the vocational and professional training sector could be engaged to develop bespoke certification and skill development programmes. Authorities could also stimulate demand by offering new services to citizens, creating roles within the public sector and through public procurement.

Protect platform workers. AI is closely linked to many sectors of the ‘platform economy’, which has blurred the lines between employees and independent workers. These workers depend upon platforms, but have limited access to their algorithms or the vast amounts of data that is collected from across the networks. Furthermore, they often lack the safety nets provided by traditional employers such as regular hours, pension schemes, sick pay and family leave. Measures could be taken to ensure coverage of social protection and collective representation for these and other workers that are vulnerable to unfair distribution of the costs and benefits of AI development.

Further resolutions on fair working conditions, rights and social protection for platform workers and AI in education are in preparation.

Read the complete ‘At a glance’ on ‘What if artificial intelligence made work obsolete?‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘What if artificial intelligence made work obsolete?‘ on YouTube.

Written by Clare Ferguson,

© artjazz / Fotolia

In view of the novel coronavirus outbreak, the European Parliament is implementing a range of precautionary measures. However, the Parliament has a duty to maintain its legislative work, and therefore the plenary session is still planned to take place (although the session will now be held in Brussels), with a number of pressing issues on the agenda. The Council and European Commission are expected to make statements on the novel coronavirus on Tuesday morning. Members are likely to support a coordinated European Union (EU) response to minimising the health and economic impact of the epidemic, with a vote on a motion for resolution scheduled for Thursday lunchtime.

International Women’s Day takes place on 8 March, and Members will hear statements from the Council and Commission on women as key agents for change on Tuesday morning. Indeed, young women (such as Greta Thunberg, who addressed Parliament’s Environment Committee on 4 March 2020), are increasingly making their mark on the world stage. However, gender inequalities persist despite the opportunities offered by the digital revolution, and Members will take stock of women’s rights in the digital age in a topical debate on Wednesday afternoon.

On Wednesday morning, Members will hear Council and Commission statements on the migration situation at the Greek-Turkish border and the EU response, where weaknesses in the Dublin system of international protection applications are likely once again to come to the fore. While proposals on EU budget financing for activities related to migration and border management are already on the table for the 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework (MFF), these are yet to be agreed. In a joint debate on Wednesday morning, Members will also hear statements on the conclusions of the special European Council meeting on the next MFF, and on preparations for the European Council meeting scheduled for 26 and 27 March.

Members will hear a number of statements from the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (VP/HR) on Tuesday afternoon. The first concerns a key EU strategic partner in the neighbourhood, Georgia, where elections are due in October 2020. The current government is under considerable criticism for its failure to progress on democratic reform. However, Parliament hopes its support of the country’s membership of the Eastern Partnership will encourage the government to implement the reforms called for under its Association Agreement with the EU. Members will vote on a motion for resolution on Thursday. The VP/HR will also make a statement marking five years of implementation of the Minsk agreements, which were intended to provide a roadmap to move from war to peace in Ukraine. Following Russian incursion, fighting in Ukraine led to EU sanctions on Russia in 2014. As the Minsk agreements have had limited success, fighting continues and the sanctions remain in place. Parliament has repeatedly underlined the Kremlin’s responsibility for the implementation of the Minsk accords. On Thursday, Members will vote on a motion for resolution on the five years of implementation.

Small businesses are the backbone of the EU economy, and a joint debate on Tuesday afternoon will focus on the EU strategies on small and medium-sized businesses and European industry, where Parliament has been keen to support Commission efforts to reduce red tape and administrative burden. Such businesses are also one focus of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL) report on the employment aspects of the 2020 Annual Growth Survey, which Members will discuss on Wednesday afternoon. The report is a step in the European Semester process, which allows EU countries to coordinate on economic reform and budget plans. The committee welcomes the Commission’s focus on attaining the Sustainable Development Goals, and makes several proposals to boost measures to tackle poverty, gender equality and access to health, all aimed at ensuring a just transition in a fair society.

Parliament plays a vital role in scrutinising such EU policy. Parliament’s committees therefore review several major policy areas and prepare an annual report. On Monday evening, Members will consider two Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) reports, where the committee calls for greater Parliamentary involvement in the process. The first report, on the state of play on banking union in 2019, acknowledges the need for a solid banking union to underpin the economy and to encourage competitiveness and convergence. However, the committee calls for greater advances in risk sharing, particularly in face of the threats associated with climate change or digital weaknesses and more specifically, the challenge posed by the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU. The second report deals with a review of EU competition policy in 2019. In view of the increased importance of global markets, the EU needs robust policy with international reach. The committee underlines the need, among other measures, to boost European market leaders and reinforce international standards, particularly in the digital field. While supporting the use of State aid for the European Green Deal, the committee also proposes introducing measures to fine countries that distort competition through State aid.

Finally, during voting on Wednesday, the Fisheries Committee recommends that Parliament consent to the conclusion of a new Protocol on the implementation of the EU–São Tomé and Príncipe fisheries agreement. Under the agreement, in exchange for €840 000 in EU assistance (more than half of which is earmarked to promote sustainable fisheries), São Tomé and Príncipe grants access for EU vessels to tuna stocks in the region.

Written by Tania Latici,

© Leoniek van der Vliet / Shutterstock

To ‘unite and strengthen Europe’ is one of the goals expressed by the newly elected President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen. Her predecessor, Jean-Claude Juncker, believed that only ‘a strong and united Europe can protect our citizens against threats internal and external.’ European infrastructure that enables connectivity and ensures a rapid response in case of a crisis is a prerequisite for these visions. Since 2017, awareness has been increasing about the obstacles preventing armed forces from moving effectively and swiftly across borders in crisis conditions. The measures taken to correct this strategic vulnerability are known under the term military mobility.

Existing regulatory, administrative, and infrastructure inconsistencies and impediments across the territory of the European Union (EU) significantly hamper military exercises and training. Military mobility aims to harmonise rules across EU Member States and to explore the potential of a civilian-military approach to infrastructure development. Through measures such as funding dual‑use transport infrastructure, and simplifying diplomatic clearances and customs rules, the European Commission aims to improve military mobility across as well as beyond the EU, in support of missions and operations under the Common Security and Defence Policy. The unique EU contribution is its ability to leverage existing policies in the civilian realm to create added value for the military.

This goal can be achieved only if a whole-of-government approach is applied, which in turn requires close collaboration between different bodies at the EU level, between them and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and between them and various actors at the Member State level. So far, military mobility has enjoyed a high degree of commitment from all stakeholders, which has in turn ensured swift policy implementation. It is becoming increasingly clear that military mobility is an essential piece in the EU’s ambition to become a stronger global actor.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Military mobility: Infrastructure for the defence of Europe‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘Military mobility‘ on YouTube.

Written by Rosamund Shreeves and Martina Prpic.

Greta Thunberg, the Swedish teenager who has inspired a youth-led international movement to tackle climate change, is due to address the European Commission and the European Parliament in the same week as International Women’s Day. Seven years ago, the European Parliament awarded the Sakharov prize for freedom of thought to another teenager, Malala Yousafzai, who now spearheads a global campaign for girls’ education. The very fact that the voices of these young women are being heard in international fora shows that progress has been made towards girls’ participation in public life. However, in a recent interview on the rise of youth activism, the now 22 year-old Yousafzai also highlighted the contrast between the large numbers of girls coming forward as activists and the continued under-representation of young people – and women – at the tables where decisions are made.

This is not a new issue. In 1995, the ground-breaking documents adopted at the UN’s World Conference on Women drew attention both to the persistent discrimination facing girls worldwide – and to their potential to advocate for themselves and their communities. In adopting the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (BPfA), 189 countries committed to uphold women’s rights and take measures in 12 interrelated areas where urgent action was needed, including the specific area of girls’ rights. This year’s 25th anniversary of the BPfA is being marked both by a review of progress and by a push to ensure that younger generations of activists are involved in setting future priorities.

For this year’s review of the BPfA, the EU’s gender equality institute, EIGE, has drawn up a comprehensive report focusing on developments and recommendations for future action. Its key message is that although efforts to advance the situation of women and girls have had an impact, substantial gender inequalities persist across all twelve areas of concern, including girls’ rights.

Poverty alleviation was the first area of concern in the Platform for Action. In 1995, the evidence showed that, worldwide, women and girls were more likely than men and boys to be at risk of or living in poverty. For individuals, this manifested as low income, food insecurity, homelessness, unsafe living conditions, higher risks of illness and barriers to participation in education and social and cultural life. Countries committed to take steps to address the needs of women and girls living in poverty, particularly the most marginalised, and to modify their macro-economic and social policies to take account of the gender dimension. However, 25 years on, gender disparities in poverty levels and impacts persist. Worldwide, women and girls are still 4 % more likely than men and boys to live in extreme poverty. EIGE’s report highlights that in the EU, young people aged 16-24 are currently the most affected age group, whilst children faced the highest risk across all age groups in 2017. Having a parent with a low educational level or from a migrant background increases the vulnerability to poverty and social exclusion. For these age groups, there is little gender difference in the level of risk. However, EIGE points out that the way that data on poverty is collected makes it difficult to see whether girls and boys within households have the same living standards.

There are also aspects of poverty that concern girls and young women specifically. In 2018, the World Health Organization drew attention to the issue of ‘menstrual’ or period poverty in the European Region. Studies find that the inability to afford sanitary products is impeding girls’ education. In 2019, survey research in the UK found that in the past 12 months, one in 20 girls aged between 14 and 21 had struggled to afford products and 4 % had been unable to access them. Over half (52 %) of the girls surveyed had missed school or college because of their period. The most common reason given was period-related cramps (85 %), but 7 % had missed school because they could not access or could not afford sanitary products, the equivalent of one girl in a class of 30 pupils. The European Parliament drew attention to the issue in its resolution of 15 January 2019 on gender equality and taxation policies in the EU, calling on all EU Member States to eliminate the so-called ‘tampon tax’ by making use of the flexibility introduced in the VAT Directive and applying exemptions or 0 % VAT rates. As things stand, VAT rates applied to menstrual hygiene products vary significantly between countries. Advocacy organisations such as the platform ‘Young Feminist Europe’ are calling for 0 % tariffs and distribution of free products.

Other concerns flagged in relation to girls’ rights include:

• Health and wellbeing: The indicators chosen to measure progress in this area at EU level are body self-image and sexual and reproductive health. Survey data for 2014 shows that in all EU countries, girls aged 15 and 13 are significantly more likely than boys of the same age to report that they are ‘too fat’, and the same pattern exists in most countries for 11 year-olds.
• The impacts of gender stereotypes: time-use data for adults shows that women still assume an unequal share of unpaid domestic and care work compared to men, which has consequences for their engagement in paid work and earnings over a lifetime. There is far less data on the division of household labour between girls and boys in the EU. However, a survey conducted amongst children aged 10-12 in 2013/2014 found that this pattern begins early. In the five EU Member States covered in the survey (Estonia, Germany, Poland, Romania, Spain) and the United Kingdom, girls were more likely to help with housework every day. On the other hand, girls were less likely to play sports or exercise on a daily basis.
• Gendered educational pathways: For adults, the labour market continues to be characterised by high levels of gender segregation and this pattern is also evident in secondary and tertiary education. Although girls and boys achieve similar levels in maths and science subjects in school, fewer girls study these subjects beyond the age of 15 and fewer girls expect to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). This is a concern, because this sector is likely to expand.
• Emerging opportunities and challenges presented by digitisation: The digital sector could also be a gateway to skilled jobs and new means of expression and participation, but there are potential barriers to girls’ inclusion. It is estimated that one in ten women have already experienced cyber violence since the age of 15, adding to the level of violence experienced already offline. In 2019, the EU added four new indicators to measure the shares of 15 year-old girls and boys who have been cyberbullied and the shares of 16-19 year-old girls and boys who have above basic digital skills, feel confident about using digital technologies, and use digital technologies to take part in political life.

Looking forward, the United Nations has set up a Beijing +25 youth task force to help ensure that young people’s voices are heard in the review and the associated global campaign ‘Generation Equality: Realizing women’s rights for an equal future‘. Girls’ rights will also be mainstreamed in the multi-stakeholder coalitions that will identify concrete actions to be carried out between 2020 and 2025 in six priority areas. Each coalition must include one action that focuses on the rights of adolescent girls and young women and ensure that they are involved in setting priorities and monitoring. Against the backdrop of a global backlash against women’s rights, the aim is to remobilise, create partnerships to address persisting gender gaps and emerging issues, and make real progress on achieving equality for all women and girls worldwide.

In 2019, the European Parliament hosted an event during the European Week of Action for Girls (EWAG), bringing youth advocates and newly-elected Members together to discuss what matters to girls and young women in Europe, and how their needs and interests could be included in the EU’s next gender equality policy. A new EU gender equality strategy for 2020-2024 is due to be adopted by the European Commission on 5 March 2020.

Further reading

• Briefing: Beijing Platform for Action: 25-year review and future priorities, Rosamund Shreeves, Martina Prpic, February 2020.
• Infographic: ‘Beijing Platform for Action – 25 Years On’, Giulio Sabbati, Martina Prpic and Rosamund Shreeves, February 2020.
• Topical Digest Gender equality: a review of progress, March 2020.
  • Towards a new EU gender equality strategy
  • Women in parliaments
  • Women in film: Still fighting the celluloid ceiling
  • Gender equality in sports: (Slowly) changing the game
  • Teaching: A woman’s world
  • Violence against women in the EU: state of play

Read more on the Parliaments’ fight for gender Equality in the EU.

 

The European Parliament regularly receives questions from citizens about its political groups.

© European Union 2017 – Source : EP

In the European Parliament, Members do not act on the basis of nationality, but rather on the basis of political affinity. The Members, and the many political parties they represent, therefore form political groups that share similar values and agendas. These groups occupy specified seating zones in the European Parliament Chamber. Following the European elections in May 2019, seven political groups were formed in the European Parliament. Members who are not part of a political group are known as ‘non-attached’ Members.

This organisation into political groups contributes to the European Parliament’s operational capability and efficiency by preventing fragmentation and by facilitating the decision-making process; however, these groups do not operate as strong a system of group discipline as that found in most national parliaments.

The political groups in the European Parliament are not identical to European political parties. Although most of the national parties represented within a given political group are also members of the corresponding political party at EU level, some political groups bring together more than one European political party.

How are they formed?

Under the European Parliament’s rules of procedure, a political group is made up of a minimum of 25 Members elected from at least one quarter of EU countries (currently seven). A Member may not belong to more than one political group.

Members can form or dissolve a political group at any time during the parliamentary term. If the number of Members falls below the required threshold, the President, with the agreement of the heads of political groups, may allow it to continue to exist until the next sitting, provided that the members of the group continue to represent at least one fifth of EU countries (six) and the group has been in existence for longer than a year.

How are they funded?

Political groups (as well as non-attached Members) are provided with a secretariat funded from the budget of the European Parliament. In 2020, appropriations (covering administrative and operational costs as well as political and information activities) amounted to €63 million. The budget is allocated at the beginning of each year, through a system based on the number of Members in each group (and non-attached Members).

Further information

• The Political groups of the European Parliament, European Parliament.
• European Parliament: Facts and Figures, European Parliamentary Research Service.
• Rules on political groups in the EP, European Parliamentary Research Service.
• Political groups in the European Parliament since 1979: Key facts and figures, European Parliamentary Research Service.

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

Written by Monika Kiss,

© European Union, 2020

Demography matters. The economy and the labour market, but also social protection, intergenerational fairness and healthcare, the environment, food and nutrition are all driven by demography. The population of EU countries has grown substantially – by around a quarter since 1960 – and currently it stands at almost 450 million. The numbers are now beginning to stagnate however and are expected to decline from around the middle of the century. With the world population having risen still more substantially and growth continuing, the EU represents a shrinking proportion of the global population. The EU population is also ageing dramatically, as life expectancy increases and fertility rates fall below past levels. This has serious implications across a range of areas including the economy, healthcare and pensions. Free movement within the EU and migration from third countries also play an important role in shaping demography in individual Member States and regions. The ‘in-focus’ section of this year’s edition of the demographic outlook examines food and nutrition-related demographic challenges. It shows that, even if improving food quality and healthier eating habits lead to higher life expectancy, the EU still has to tackle the harmful consequences and prevent the causes of diet-related chronic conditions, such as obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. This paper is the third in a series produced by EPRS on the demographic outlook for the European Union.

Read the complete study on ‘Demographic outlook for the European Union 2020‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.