European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

Written by Aidan Christie and Eulalia Claros,

The Council of the European Union – often referred to as the Council of Ministers, or simply the Council – forms one part of the legislature and the budgetary authority of the Union. The Council and European Parliament together adopt much of the EU’s legislation and the Union’s annual budget, on the basis of proposals put forward by the executive, the European Commission. The Council also takes decisions on specific areas of EU action, in particular in Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), where it seeks to coordinate Member States’ positions, and concludes – subject to the consent of the Parliament – international agreements, usually negotiated by the Commission on the basis of a mandate from the Council.

The Council of the EU is distinct from the European Council, which is now a separate institution made up of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States. The European Council is responsible for defining the general political directions and priorities for the Union, but does not have formal legislative functions.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Council of the European Union: Facts and Figures‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Cemal Karakas (1st edition),

© buffaloboy / Shutterstock.com

On 11 July 2019, the Commission presented its new legislative package on the European Institute of Innovation and Technology. The package consists of a recast of the current regulation and the new strategic innovation agenda.

Created in 2008 at the start of the seventh EU research and development framework programme, the EIT is dedicated to increasing competitiveness, sustainable economic growth and job creation by promoting knowledge triangle activities (higher education, research and innovation). It operates through eight ‘knowledge and innovation communities’ that address specific societal challenges, such as digitalisation, urban mobility, climate and raw materials and is part of Horizon 2020.

Versions

• December 2019:  ‘European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT): Regulation and new strategic innovation agenda‘ (1st edition)

a) Proposal for a regulation on the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (recast)

b) Proposal for a decision on the Strategic Innovation Agenda of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) 2021-2027: Boosting the Innovation Talent and Capacity of Europe Committee responsible: Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) COM(2019) 331
COM(2019) 330

11.7.2019 Rapporteurs: a) Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL, Portugal)
b) Maria Da Graça Carvalho (EPP, Portugal) 2019/0151(COD)
2019/0152(COD) Shadow rapporteurs: Andrius Kubilius (EPP, Lithuania), Lina Gálvez Muñoz (S&D, Spain), Susana Solís Pérez (Renew, Spain), Ijabs Ivars, (Renew, Latvia), Klaus Buchner (Greens/EFA, Germany), Robert Roos (ECR, the Netherlands), Andrea Caroppo (ID, Italy), Elena Lizzi (ID, Italy) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Publication of draft reports

Written by Ralf Drachenberg and Suzana Anghel,

© European Union 2018 – Source : EP

At the first meeting chaired by the new President of the European Council, Charles Michel, EU Heads of State or Government gathered for meetings of the European Council, the European Council’s Article 50 formation and the Euro Summit. The main issues on the agenda of the European Council itself were climate change, the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), and the proposed Conference on the Future of Europe. Regarding climate change, the European Council announced an agreement on the objective of achieving a climate-neutral EU by 2050, despite the refusal of one Member State to commit to implementing this objective at this stage. On the MFF, the European Council did not reach agreement, but mandated its President to take the negotiations forward. The European Council also considered the idea of a Conference on the Future of Europe, and tasked the incoming Croatian Council Presidency to work towards defining a Council position on the matter, and on that basis, to engage with the European Parliament and the Commission. EU leaders also discussed a wide range of international issues, including relations with Turkey and Russia, notably the renewal of the economic sanctions on the latter, and the mounting terrorist activities in the Sahel. Following the general election in the United Kingdom, the European Council’s Article 50 formation called for the timely ratification and effective implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement, and confirmed its desire to establish as close as possible a future relationship with the UK. It invited the Commission to submit to the Council a draft comprehensive negotiating mandate for this process, to begin immediately after the UK’s withdrawal. The Euro Summit tasked the Eurogroup to continue working on the package of reforms to the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), and on all elements contributing to a stronger banking union. On the Budgetary Instrument for Convergence and Competitiveness (BICC), EU leaders invited the Eurogroup to swiftly provide appropriate solutions for its financing.

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

In accordance with Article 235(2) TFEU, the President of the European Parliament, David Sassoli, addressed the European Council at the start of its proceedings. The Prime Minister of Finland, Sanna Marin, President-in-Office of the Council, provided an overview on the progress made in implementing previous European Council conclusions.

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

Policy area Action Actor Schedule Climate change Come back to the objective of achieving a climate-neutral EU by 2050 European Council June 2020 Climate change Prepare a proposal for the EU’s long-term strategy with a view to its adoption by the Council and its submission to the UNFCCC. European Commission Early 2020 2. European Council meeting Climate change

EU leaders endorsed ‘the objective of achieving a climate-neutral EU by 2050’, although one of the Member States, Poland, could not commit to implementing this objective at this stage. Poland will not, for now, implement the objectives of the European Commission’s European Green Deal, which entail the adoption of a European Climate Law setting climate-neutrality by 2050 as a legally binding objective. EU leaders took note of the Commission communication on the European Green Deal and asks the Council ‘to take work’ forward with a view to enabling a fair, just and ‘socially balanced’ green transition, compliant with the Paris Agreement commitments. They agreed that ‘significant public and private investments’ were needed for a successful green transition and ‘welcomed’ the European Investment Bank’s intention ‘to support €1 trillion of investment’ in climate and environmental action between 2021 and 2030.

Funding clearly remains a sensitive issue. With several Member States concerned by the impact and cost of the green transition, the lack of clarity in the MFF ‘negotiating box’ put forward by the Finnish Presidency, with no indicative amount for the forthcoming Just Transition Mechanism, did not enable further progress. Prior to the meeting, the European Commission had announced its intention to mobilise €100 billion ‘targeted to the most vulnerable regions and sectors’, a proposal ‘welcomed’ by the European Council, and which could also be supported by Parliament. Moreover, EU leaders acknowledged the importance of mainstreaming climate in ‘all relevant EU legislation and policies’. They invited the Commission to propose adjustments to the existing (legislative) situation where necessary, including ‘on state aid and public procurement’.

The new European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, stated that the EU wished to remain a ‘front-runner’ in the fight against climate change and provide the world with a model, whilst the new European Council President, Charles Michel, stressed the geopolitical importance of climate diplomacy. The implementation of the Paris Agreement remains a key objective of the EU’s climate action, and the European Council reminded Member States of their obligation to submit their ‘nationally determined contributions (NDCs) for 2030 in good time before COP26’.

Main message of the EP President: The President of the European Parliament, David Sassoli, stressed that climate change is the first concern of EU citizens and therefore, rightfully so, a priority for the EU institutions’ ‘shared agenda’. He recalled that, recently the Parliament had recognised climate change as an ‘existential threat’ to humanity and welcomed the Commission’s efforts to tackle it through its newly unveiled European Green Deal. President Sassoli urged EU leaders to support more ambitious climate action and to commit to climate-neutrality by 2050.

Multiannual Financial Framework

Based on the presentation of the negotiating box with figures by the outgoing Finnish Presidency, EU leaders briefly discussed the main features of the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). Without specifying a concrete deadline, the European Council called ‘on its President to take the negotiations forward with the aim of reaching a final agreement’.

Following the European Council meeting, the President of the European Council, Charles Michel, laid out the working methods of the ‘next phase’ in agreeing the MFF, which is his responsibility in close cooperation with the Commission. He indicated that, in order to reach an agreement in the coming weeks or months, he will organise bilateral meetings at technical and political level, and then, judge when the time is right to reach the ’landing zone’ of the negotiations. Some of the most sensitive issues that need to be addressed include: the level of ambition, the question of rebates, conditionality, balance between classic priorities and new priorities (e.g. climate change) as well as own resources, which were to be discussed in close cooperation with the Parliament.

Main messages of the EP President: President Sassoli stressed the ‘need to find an agreement as quickly as possible in order to avoid delays in implementing the Union’s policies and programmes.’ As the Parliament’s position on the MFF is well known, President Sassoli expressed surprise at the latest proposal from the Finnish Presidency, which fell short of the expectations of all of the Parliament’s political groups. He pointed out that the Parliament regarded the decision on the multiannual budget as a ‘single package’, involving the introduction of a new own resources ‘basket’ as well as the increase of spending to 1.3 % of gross national income. He underlined that ‘no one should make the mistake of taking Parliament’s consent for granted without having listened to what it has to say.’

Conference on the Future of Europe

As flagged up in the EPRS Outlook, the European Council considered the idea of a Conference on the Future of Europe starting in 2020 and ending in 2022. It recalled ‘that priority should be given to implementing the Strategic Agenda agreed in June [2019], and to delivering concrete results for the benefit of our citizens’. The conference should contribute to the development of policies in the medium and long term so that we can better tackle current and future challenges. It should build on the citizens’ dialogues over the past two years and provide for broad consultation of citizens. It needs to be ‘an inclusive process, with all Member States involved equally.’ The European Council stressed that the process should ‘involve the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission, in full respect of the interinstitutional balance and their respective roles as defined in the Treaties’. It asked the Croatian Council Presidency ‘to work towards defining a Council position on the content, scope, composition and functioning of such a conference and to engage, on this basis, with the Parliament and the Commission.’ The Parliament is expected to adopt a resolution in January, in order to start discussions with the Council and the Commission early next year.

Main messages of the EP President: President Sassoli welcomed the Commission’s step of ‘proposing a conference, but [was] even more pleased that, for the first time in these 10 years, the Council/the Member States are also keen to launch a wide-ranging debate on the future of Europe and reach agreement on a shared vision of how we can improve our policy-making in order to achieve practical results and benefits for our citizens.’ He stressed that ‘Parliament, intend[s] to be a driving force in the organisation of the conference and in its proceedings.’ For President Sassoli, ‘it is vital that the Presidents of the three institutions show joint leadership by taking on a personal role in this process’.

Other Items Working methods of the European Council

Charles Michel explained how he envisaged the future work of the European Council would be carried out, and presented to European Council members an ‘indicative agenda’ for its work over the coming years. He stressed that a concerted agenda, coordinated between the institutions (Council, Commission, Parliament), was a key element in advancing the European project.

International trade

EU leaders reiterated their full support for the global rules-based international order, and expressed their concern at the paralysis of the WTO’s mechanism for settling disputes. They supported the Commission’s efforts to set up interim arrangements with third countries, as has been done so far with Canada and Norway. They called on the co-legislators to examine the Commission’s proposal to amend the EU Enforcement Regulation. This will allow the EU to enforce international trade rules in circumstances where the WTO is no longer able to deliver binding dispute-settlement decisions.

EU-Africa partnership

The European Council called on the Commission and the High Representative to provide it with the necessary basis for a strategic discussion on EU relations with Africa at its meeting in June 2020. This discussion will contribute to the preparations ahead of the African Union-EU summit, scheduled for autumn 2020, which will be a milestone in modernising and scaling up the EU’s partnership with Africa. President Michel confirmed that EU leaders have discussed the security situation in West Africa and the Sahel, including counter-terrorism aspects, and deplored the deadly terrorist attack perpetrated in Niger. The development of a comprehensive partnership with Africa is viewed as a high priority in the political agendas of both the European Council and the Commission.

External relations

The European Council once again condemned Turkey’s illegal drilling activities in the Exclusive Economic Zone of Cyprus, and stressed that Turkey’s actions are in violation of the Law of the Sea. In November 2019, the Council adopted a framework for sanctions targeted against ‘individuals or entities responsible for, or involved in, unauthorised drilling activities of hydrocarbons in the Eastern Mediterranean’. President Michel said that the EU should nevertheless pursue dialogue with Turkey as well as cooperation on certain issues, including migration, but that it needed a ‘strategic vision’, including short and long-term goals, to define its bilateral relationship with Turkey.

The French President, Emmanuel Macron, and Germany’s Chancellor, Angela Merkel, informed their colleagues of the evolution of the situation in Ukraine, of the outcome of the recent Normandy format discussions and of the measures agreed. Considering the lack of progress in the implementation of the Minsk Agreements, EU leaders gave a green-light for the renewal, for a further six months, of the economic sanctions on Russia following its illegal annexation of Crimea.

The European Council expressed solidarity with Albania following the recent earthquake, and welcomed the European Commission’s commitment to provide humanitarian assistance.

3. Euro Summit

The Euro Summit welcomed progress achieved in the Eurogroup on deepening economic and monetary union. EU leaders tasked the Eurogroup to continue working both on the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) reforms and on all elements aimed at further strengthening banking union. They also discussed the Budgetary Instrument for Convergence and Competitiveness (BICC), and invited the Eurogroup to find solutions for its financing, to meet the Euro Summit’s ambitions for convergence and competitiveness. President Michel will discuss the BICC with Member States in the context of MFF consultations, with the aim of finalising it together with the MFF package. He also mentioned that, in parallel to the work of the Eurogroup, the development of a long-term vision for the international role of the euro, matching the Union’s global economic and financial weight, would constitute an important focus in the coming months.

4. European Council (Article50) meeting

The UK general election, held on 12 December 2019, saw the Conservative Party win a clear majority of seats in the House of Commons, paving the way for the UK to leave the EU on 31 January 2020. The European Council reiterated its commitment to an orderly withdrawal based on the Withdrawal Agreement and called for the latter’s timely ratification and effective implementation. EU leaders invited the Commission to prepare a draft comprehensive negotiating mandate for the future EU-UK relationship, with a view to its adoption by the General Affairs Council. The future relationship needs to be based on a balance of rights and obligations and ensure a level playing field.

Read this briefing on ‘Outcome of the meetings of EU leaders, 12-13 December 2019‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Lieve Van Woensel with Sophie Millar,

© Shutterstock

Life expectancy has been projected to continue to rise in industrialised countries, including in Europe, mostly due to increases in people reaching the age of 65 years and older. What if life expectancy in Europe rose further and reached 150 years? This publication approaches the concept of increased life expectancy in terms of increased adult life years, and discusses some hypothetical impacts and anticipatory policy issues.

Social, technological and healthcare system improvements have contributed to considerable longevity gains in Europe over the last 100 years, for example, improved prognosis and treatment of cancer and cardiovascular diseases, lower infant mortality rates, successful vaccination, and fewer deaths from infectious disease. A further 50 % increase in our lifespan, as seen in the last century, is unlikely to occur due to the same continued advance, but instead through progress in slowing the ageing process, which remains one of the least understood aspects of life. Advances have mostly been made at the cellular and genomic level, and a ‘cure for ageing’ (the debate on which is a topic in itself), is a long way off. One component of ageing is that our human cells undergo a finite number of replications or have a limited ‘lifespan’, with programmed cell senescence and death. Manipulation of this process, through genetics or even diet (e.g. caloric restriction) may extend longevity. However, quality of life and the extension of healthy life years are critically important, as opposed to simply extending life per se. Environmental improvements may also more immediately contribute to added life and healthy life years. Globally, 6.5 million deaths a year are attributed to air pollution alone, for example. Reducing car traffic or making cars more environmentally friendly (e.g. electric or hydrogen-fuelled cars) considerably improves air quality and can therefore extend life expectancy.

Potential impacts and developments

What if life expectancy in Europe reached 150 years? Coupled with a declining fertility rate, this would lead to a drastic change in demographics, with a considerable shift in balance towards an elderly population. Our social and physical environments would be significantly altered from a wide range of perspectives, resulting in major shifts in our framing of the education–work–retirement cycle; our household make-up; and our healthcare system, including the role of assistive technologies, for example. In this scenario, we consider an increasing elderly population on the assumption that overall population growth slows, and the impacts and policy considerations discussed below are therefore primarily focused on increasing population age, as opposed to an increasing population in number, which could also be a consequence of increased longevity.

A declining birth rate in Europe, due in part to better family planning, education, and the increasing average age of women when having their first child, is one factor in a changing working-age population. Fewer children per woman can be considered a positive in terms of environmental impact, and can lead to more women working, boosting the working-age population (a factor also determined by mortality and migration). However, an increasingly older population could nevertheless help preserve a working age population of the necessary size in the face of declining birth rates, on the premise that healthy life years, and retirement ages, are equally significantly prolonged. Maintaining a productive working population is essential to defer potential economic losses predicted from a declining birth rate and an older population. Society-wide attitudes to the education-work-retirement pattern would also need to be challenged to more adaptive thinking, including for example: gradual or ‘part-time’ retirement, career breaks, continuous upskilling and re-education, reconstruction of traditional ‘single’ path careers, and perhaps increased emphasis on voluntary and mentoring activities.

Younger generations are essential actors in the emergence of newer technologies, attitudes, and ideologies that can benefit the planet and society, with youth climate activists today providing a good example. Shifts towards continued education and methods to increase innovation, acceptance and open-mindedness may be necessary in a mainly older population. On the other hand, older people possess a valuable wealth of experience, knowledge and wisdom they can pass to subsequent generations in an educative, leadership or mentoring capacity. Social norms and age prejudice would, however, need to be tackled proactively, allowing a flow of dynamic intergenerational interaction.

The alternative scenario, where fertility rates do not decrease in line with extended life expectancy, and the global population continues to rise, would see detrimental consequences. The global burden on resources such as land, materials, energy, food and water, would be unsustainable at the current rate of consumption. Lifestyle ideologies and core values in high-income countries would need to be greatly reprogrammed to move away from materialistic preferences and to reduce consumption, waste and carbon footprints.

Diabetes, cancer and cardiovascular diseases are some of the leading causes of death worldwide, with overweight and obesity being considerable underlying factors, associated with heavy comorbidity and an economic burden. Age itself is a major risk factor for various diseases, particularly cancer and neurodegenerative diseases. If the average life expectancy were extended to 150 years, this might sharply increase the prevalence of age-related disease and disability. Frailty, bone fractures and sleep disturbance are also more common in older adults. In addition to physical health, mental health must also be taken into account in considerations of quality of life.

If the European population were to live to 150 years on average, living conditions will have to be rethought, with residential and working locations in question. Sustainably developed housing and communities would also be required, to encourage diversity, inclusion and social wellbeing for all age groups.

Anticipatory policy-making

Policies to promote healthy ageing are vital to populations that live better for longer. These could include: sustained funding for research into healthy ageing, disease prevention, and therapeutics; adaptation of the built environment and transportation systems; and assistive technologies to promote independence. Healthcare systems, including insurance and delivery of care, may need to be reimagined, with a higher emphasis perhaps placed on community settings and at-home care to relieve over-subscribed hospitals, institutions and medical staff. Increased use of volunteers and robots could help relieve or replace staff.

Continued and more drastic approaches would be needed to promote renewable energy, reduce single-use plastics and pollution, and increase incentives for a zero-waste culture and sustainable living.

The importance of mental health is not only relevant to the elderly population but throughout all stages of life, particularly as the working age range widens, with citizens potentially working for many more years. Future policies may promote a broader appreciation of the benefits of meditation and other mind-body techniques, such as yoga and tai chi, as well as of the role of healthy eating and nutrition. Linked to this is the need for sustainable food.

Another area that deserves more attention is the consideration of euthanasia and access to assisted dying. Such policies have triggered considerable ethical and legal debate and have major implications for policy.

Important policy considerations in both scenarios chiefly centre around extending healthy lifespan, shifting the education–work–retirement pattern and advancing eco-conscious lifestyles. Promotion of mental wellbeing, and research into all biological and societal aspects of healthy ageing are paramount. Finally, access to the means to live better for longer will not be sustainable unless it is equally attainable by persons from all socio-demographic groups, and must not be determined by education level, wealth, race, beliefs, gender or other prejudices. European Union legislation supporting equal access to healthcare, pensions, employment, education, and end-of-life decisions must therefore be reviewed in the light of this expected demographic change.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘What if we lived up to 150 years?‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to Science and Technology podcast ‘What if life expectancy reached 150 years?’ on YouTube.

Written by Rachele Rossi,

© nd3000 / Shutterstock.com

Irrigation is the provision of water to help crops grow when rainfall is not sufficient. While new farming methods and technologies allow some types of crops to be grown without soil, a certain amount of water is needed to grow any kind of crop. In today’s economy, agriculture is one of the sectors that consumes the most water resources. Irrigation is the major cause of water consumption in agriculture. It contributes to increasing crop productivity, but it is also a threat to the preservation of water resources. Therefore, the issue of water scarcity requires careful reflection on the trade-off between higher agricultural productivity and the deterioration of water resources.

A number of elements determine the amount of irrigation water used in agriculture, from the types of crop and cropping method to the characteristics of the soil and the irrigation technique, to name just a few. Therefore, agriculture itself provides opportunities for better water management and water savings, through both traditional farm practices and new farming technologies.

Irrigation has been a feature of European agriculture for thousands of years. Not surprisingly, the majority of irrigated agricultural areas are in the EU’s southern regions, in particular in Spain and Italy. However, there are areas equipped for irrigation elsewhere, especially in the Netherlands. Over 40 % of the EU’s water use is on agriculture, and most of the freshwater abstraction is for agricultural use in countries like Greece, Spain, and Cyprus.

Prolonged periods of drought in many parts of the Union, the effects of climate change and pollution, as well as competition over use add further pressure on EU waters. Ensuring food security in view of climate change requires improvement in water-management capacity, including making users (farmers) more responsible. In recent times, the environmental performance of sectoral policies, such as in the area of agriculture, is increasingly scrutinised by citizens, stakeholders, and policy-makers. Various EU policy initiatives have been launched to address the challenge of sustainable water use in agriculture, including a more integrated approach to water management, water re-use, research and innovation, and more environmental ambition in the agricultural policy. Better policy coordination between EU policies and actions is seen as key to achieving the sustainable safeguarding of EU waters.

Volume of water used for irrigation in the EU in 2010 (% of total cubic metres)

Read the complete briefing on ‘Irrigation in EU agriculture‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘Irrigation in EU agriculture’ on YouTube.

Written by Marie-Laure Augère-Granier,

Red Chicken

Poultry meat is the second most produced and consumed meat in the European Union, after pig meat. The sector is known as one of the most intensive farming systems in the EU, with some farms numbering more than 100 000 birds. This intensive system features high stocking densities, indoor rearing and the use of fast-growing breeds obtained by genetic selection. It is estimated that 90 % of meat chickens are raised in such systems in the EU. However, alternative chicken production systems (free-range and organic) are on the increase in many EU countries. As regards egg production, the 400 million laying hens kept throughout the EU produce close to 7.5 million tonnes of eggs a year.

EU chicken and egg producers are supported by the common market organisation, as part of the common agricultural policy (CAP), which regulates trade, marketing standards and exceptional support measures in the event of disease outbreaks. Producers can also receive investment support from the CAP’s second pillar, through various rural development measures co-funded by the Member States. Research carried out in the poultry sector is also supported by rural development funds within the agricultural strand of the European Innovation Partnership.

The poultry and egg sectors are governed by a number of EU legislative acts. These span food safety, public and animal health, environmental protection, trade and marketing standards, and animal welfare throughout the production process, including transport and slaughter. Specific legislation lays down minimum rules and specific requirements for the protection of chickens and laying hens.

Many of the issues currently affecting the sector are linked to its large-scale and intensive production methods. While high stocking densities and fast growth impact negatively on poultry welfare, intensive production can also be detrimental to the environment and human health.

When it comes to international trade, the EU is among the top four chicken meat producers, along with the United States, Brazil and China. Its trade balance is positive in volume and the EU is expected to increase its exports as global demand is set to remain strong, particularly in Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East. The EU is also the world’s second largest producer of eggs, after China, and a net exporter of eggs and egg products.

In a recent non-legislative resolution on animal welfare, antimicrobial use and the environmental impact of industrial broiler farming, Parliament expressed its concern about the inappropriate implementation of the EU directive on the protection of broilers by some Member States and the increase in multi-drug-resistant zoonotic agents in chicken farming. It therefore called on the European Commission to draw up a roadmap to promote better chicken farming practices.

Read the complete in-depth analysis on ‘The EU poultry meat and egg sector: Main features, challenges and prospects‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘What do you know about chickens and eggs?’ on YouTube.

Written by Enrique Gomez Ramirez,

The Amazon rainforest, which is the largest ecosystem of its kind on Earth and is shared by eight South American countries as well as an EU outermost region, was ravaged by fires coinciding with last summer’s dry season. However, most of these fires are set intentionally and are linked to increased human activities in the area, such as the expansion of agriculture and cattle farming, illegal logging, mining and fuel extraction.

Although a recurrent phenomenon that has been going on for decades, some governments’ recent policies appear to have contributed to the increase in the surface area burnt in 2019, in particular in Brazil and Bolivia. Worldwide media coverage of the fires, and international and domestic protests against these policies have nevertheless finally led to some initiatives to seriously tackle the fires, both at national and international level – such as the Leticia Pact for Amazonia.

Finding a viable long-term solution to end deforestation and achieve sustainable development in the region, requires that the underlying causes are addressed and further action is taken at both national and international levels. The EU is making, and can increase, its contribution by cooperating with the affected countries and by leveraging the future EU-Mercosur Association Agreement to help systematic law enforcement action against deforestation. In addition, as the environmental commitments made at the 2015 Conference of Parties (COP21) in Paris will have to be renewed in 2020, COP25 in December 2019 could help reach new commitments on forests.

Amazonian region

Read the complete briefing on ‘Amazon wildfire crisis: Need for an international response‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘Threat to the Amazon rainforest needs an urgent response’ on YouTube.

Written by Marta Latek and Eric Pichon,

© United Nations

In 2015, the United Nations adopted the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), to be attained by 2030, as a follow-up to the Millennium Development Goals (2000-2015) and the Rio+20 Summit (2012). Unlike their predecessors, the SDGs commit both developed and developing countries, and embrace the economic, environmental and social aspects of development. The SDGs and the broader 2030 Agenda for sustainable development of which they form the core, are based on the findings that human activities have triggered dramatic changes in the conditions on Earth (climate change and biodiversity loss), which in turn have contributed to the deterioration of human well‑being. To reverse the trend, there is an urgent need to simultaneously address the multiple causes and consequences of environmental depletion and social inequalities, by developing synergies and managing trade-offs between the SDGs.

Challenges in pursuing the SDGs include the fact that countries do not necessarily have an equal start and, even more importantly, that regardless of their stage of development, they can no longer afford to apply the current development model, where production and consumption happen at the expense of natural resources. According to many observers, such a model creates unsolvable tensions between SDGs, notably between the safeguarding of natural resources and the aspirations for improved well-being. The structural transformation that would bring about the desired change requires a joint effort by the international community, but equally so by natural and public or private legal persons, to urgently speed up the process. The European Union has been a leader in drafting and implementing the SDGs; however, the European Parliament considers the EU could go further in devising a common SDG strategy.

Read this briefing on ‘Understanding the Sustainable Development Goals‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© Daniel Berkmann / Fotolia

The European Union has been established as an area of security, stability and prosperity, in which economic competitiveness plays a key role. Although in terms of productivity some EU countries are doing well, compared to, for example, the United States, the EU is lagging behind some other world regions in reaping the fruits of the digital revolution. Analysts also point to the need to continue euro-area governance reforms, completing the Banking Union and pushing ahead with the creation of the Capital Markets Union. A debate continues about whether the EU should support the creation of EU industrial champions, which advocates claim could be well placed to compete internationally in some sectors.

This note brings together commentaries, analyses and studies by international think tanks and research institutes on EU competitiveness and related issues. Earlier papers on reforming the euro area are available in a previous issue from the series, published in December 2019.

Manufacturing employment, international trade, and China
Bruegel, November 2019

A primer on developing European public goods: A report to ministers Bruno Le Maire and Olaf Scholz
Bruegel, November 2019

The single market remains the decisive power of the EU
Centre for European Policy Studies, October 2019

A geographically fair EU industrial strategy
European Policy Centre, October 2019

Beyond industrial policy: Why Europe needs a new growth strategy
Jacques Delors Institute, October 2019

Comment combattre la prochaine récession?
Terra Nova, October 2019

The 2019 future of work index: How the world of work is changing – and how policy needs to change with it
Lisbon Council, October 2019

Labour market and social policy
Centre for European Policy Studies, October 2019

Structural change, institutions and the dynamics of labor productivity in Europe
German Marshall Fund, October 2019

Economic polarisation in Europe: Causes and options for action
Wiener Institut für Internationale Wirtschaftsvergleiche, September 2019

Holding together what belongs together: A strategy to counteract economic polarisation in Europe
Wiener Institut für Internationale Wirtschaftsvergleiche, September 2019

Tax law and the transfer of start-up losses: A European overview and categorization
ZEW, September 2019

Public investment a key prerequisite for private sector activity
Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, August 2019

Machine politics: Europe and the AI revolution
European Council on Foreign Relations, July 2019

Making the Single Market work: Launching a 2022 masterplan for Europe
European Policy Centre, July 2019

Facing the crisis: Rethinking economics for the age of environmental breakdown
Institute for Public Policy Research, July 2019

Wirtschaftliche Polarisierung in Europa: Ursachen und Handlungsoptionen
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, July 2019

The European Union energy transition: Key priorities for the next five years
Bruegel, July 2019

Redefining Europe’s economic sovereignty
Bruegel, June 2019

Tech giants in banking: The implications of a new market power
Istituto Affari Internazionali, June 2019

Cross border services in the internal market: An important contribution to economic and social cohesion
Institut der Deutschen Wirtschaft Köln, June 2019

Assessing Europe’s space dependency and its implications
Institut français des relations internationales, June 2019

European economic democracy: A new path out of the crisis
Foundation for European Progressive Studies, June 2019

Rebranding capital markets union: A market finance action plan
Centre for European Policy Studies, June 2019

The opportunities of the modernisation fund for the energy transition in Central and Eastern Europe
Centre for European Policy Studies, June 2019

The future of work? Work of the future! On how artificial intelligence, robotics and automation are transforming jobs and the economy in Europe
European Political Strategy Centre, May 2019

EU energy system transformation: The agenda for the next Commission
E3G, May 2019

How to improve European Union cohesion policy for the next decade
Bruegel, May 2019

Europe’s sustainability puzzle: Broadening the debate
European Political Strategy Centre, May 2019

Promoting sustainable and inclusive growth and convergence in the European Union
Bruegel, April 2019

Infrastructure for growth: How to finance, develop, and protect it
Istituto per gli Studi di Politica Internazionale, April 2019

Do data policy restrictions impact the productivity performance of firms and industries?
Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, European University Institute, April 2019

The impact of labour market institutions and capital accumulation on unemployment: Evidence from the OECD, 1985-2013
Wiener Institut für Internationale Wirtschaftsvergleiche, April 2019

Posted workers regulations as a cohesion test in the enlarged EU
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, Institute of Public Affairs, April 2019

EU mobile workers: A challenge to public finance?
Centre for European Policy Studies, April 2019

Strategic dimensions of the energy transition: Challenges and responses for France, Germany and the European Union
Institut français des relations internationales, April 2019

Mobilités propres: La voie européenne
Notre Europe, April 2019

Standing up for competition: Market concentration, regulation, and Europe’s quest for a new industrial policy
European Centre for International Political Economy, March 2019

EU industrial policy after Siemens-Alstom: Finding a new balance between openness and protection
European Political Strategy Centre, March 2019

Effect of public procurement regulation on competition and cost-effectiveness
Robert Schuman Centre, European University Institute, March 2019

Escaping the startup trap: Can policymakers help small companies grow to major employers?
Progressive Policy Institute, February 2019

Artificial Intelligence: Ethics, governance and policy challenges
Centre for European Policy Studies, February 2019

How are you doing, Europe? Mapping social imbalances in the EU
Jacques Delors Institute, Bertelsmann Stiftung, February 2019

European innovation partnerships: How successful have they been in promoting innovation in the EU?
Wiener Institut für Internationale Wirtschaftsvergleiche, January 2019

Science, technology and innovation diplomacy: A way forward for Europe
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Institute for European Studies, January 2019

Innovate Europe: Competing for global innovation leadership
World Economic Forum, January 2019

Vertical restraints and e-commerce
Bruegel, January 2019

The challenge of moving to a common consolidated corporate tax base in the EU
Institut der Deutschen Wirtschaft Köln, January 2019

Europe needs reforms for inclusive growth. Do Europeans agree?
LUISS School of European Political Economy, January 2019

Europe’s growth starlets: Wages and productivity in 4 export-oriented economies
Jacques Delors Institute, December 2018

Eco-innovation: Drivers, barriers and effects – A European perspective
Wiener Institut für Internationale Wirtschaftsvergleiche, December 2018

Which structural reforms does E(M)U need to function properly?
Wiener Institut für Internationale Wirtschaftsvergleiche, December 2018

Réforme de l’Union économique et monétaire: Quelle dimension sociale?
Notre Europe, February 2019

Read this briefing on ‘Enhancing EU competitiveness‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Clare Ferguson,

Parliament’s calendar has been a little unusual this year – with European elections and the delayed installation of the new European Commission. This month saw Members sitting in an extraordinary session on a subject of urgent importance: how the European Union (EU) will tackle the climate emergency, declared by Parliament on 29 November 2019. That session, on 11 December, saw the new Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, and Vice-President Frans Timmermans present their freshly adopted plans for a new European Green Deal, proposing to invest record amounts of public funds in advanced research and innovation, complemented by a strategy for green financing and a Sustainable Europe Investment Plan, all aimed at making Europe the first climate-neutral continent.

Moving on to the agenda for the main December plenary session … Parliament will award its 2019 Sakharov Prize to laureate Ilham Tohti on Wednesday lunchtime. The European Parliament is committed to defending human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the award highlights those who stand up for the right to freedom of expression, safeguard minority rights or champion international law, and democracy. Currently imprisoned by the Chinese government, Ilham Tohti is a moderate advocate of Uyghur minority rights who eschews radical separatist movements in favour of dialogue with the Han majority. Parliament’s President has urged the Chinese government to release Tohti, and called for China to respect minority population rights, particularly in the light of the ‘China-cables’ exposé of Chinese treatment of the Uyghur. The new Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the EU, former EP President Josep Borrell, will make a statement on the Uyghur situation on Wednesday afternoon. During this session, Parliament will also commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Lisbon Treaty and that of the Charter of Fundamental Rights becoming legally binding, on Wednesday morning, as well as hearing about the conclusions of the latest meeting of the European Council – an institution that has evolved considerably since the Lisbon Treaty entered into force.

Millions of European farmers stand to lose out when their EU income support ends in 2020, due to the lack of an agreement on the 2021-2027 EU budget and on the important reform of the common agricultural policy. Time is therefore pressing to ensure the stability of EU farmer income support post-2020. While there is broad agreement that interim measures are necessary, the EU still needs to put transitional provisions in place to bridge the gap. Parliament’s Budgets and Agriculture Committees agree that those who benefit from EU funding should not suffer harm because of the procedural delays, and have not proposed any amendments to the Commission’s proposal. Parliament will therefore vote on Wednesday lunchtime on its first-reading position on that proposal to agree a package of technical amendments to the regulations on EU financial discipline and flexibility between pillars and voluntary coupled support.

Parliament’s Committee on Petitions (PETI) recently held hearings of the five candidates for the position. The Ombudsman’s office represents citizens and others who wish to lodge complaints regarding the actions of EU administrative bodies, thereby ensuring that EU institutions respect citizens’ rights and the principles of good administration. Members will take part in the election of the European Ombudsman on Tuesday lunchtime, when the successful candidate needs to secure a majority of votes cast in a secret ballot (with subsequent rounds of voting planned for Wednesday if there is no clear winner).

If you’ve been doing some festive shopping lately, the chances are you have purchased gifts online, possibly in another country. E-commerce is booming, and while it offers opportunities to increase cross-border sales, the EU is keen to avoid that it also allows increased tax fraud. Tackling VAT fraud related to e-commerce therefore requires robust systems for the transmission and exchange of VAT-relevant payment data (such as who is supplying the goods). The European Parliament is consulted on two European Commission proposals (on maintaining and exchanging electronic payment records), and a joint debate on Monday afternoon will consider the corresponding Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee (ECON) reports.

An important element of maintaining biodiversity is ensuring that fisheries worldwide are sustainable. Parliament’s Committees on Fisheries (PECH) and Budgets (BUDG) are in favour of concluding a new EU fisheries agreement with The Gambia aimed at doing just this, including a proposed annual EU contribution of €550 000. Half of this amount covers access rights for EU fishing vessels to Gambian waters and half should assist The Gambia to develop its fisheries sector in a sustainable manner, including preventing illegal fishing. The file is scheduled for vote on Wednesday lunchtime.

Written by Ralf Drachenberg and Fernando Hortal Foronda

© European Union – EP, 2019

The European Council Oversight (ECOS) team from the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) recently organised an event on ‘EU institutional dynamics: Ten years after the Lisbon Treaty’ in the House of European history, in cooperation with the association of former members of the European Parliament (FMA) and Parliament’s Communications Directorate-General. Opening the event on 10 December 2019, Parliament Vice-President Mairead McGuinness (EPP, Ireland) highlighted the importance of the Lisbon Treaty for national parliaments and inter-religious dialogue and stressed the need to overcome the ‘silo mentality’ that persists between European policy areas, as well as the need to further improve interinstitutional cooperation.

The event, moderated by Jacki Davis, Senior Adviser at the European Policy Centre, took the form of two roundtable debates. In the first session – opened by EP Vice-President Othmar Karas – former EP President Enrique Barón Crespo, Secretary General of the European University Institute Vincenzo Grassi, and Danuta Hübner (EPP, Poland), discussed the evolution of the European Parliament’s power and the impact of the Lisbon Treaty on Parliament’s role as an institution. Enrique Barón Crespo recalled the significance of the Lisbon Treaty regarding the now compulsory character of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, and Danuta Hübner underlined that many areas of the Lisbon Treaty have not yet been used to their full potential, such as the ‘passerelle’ clauses.

The second round table discussed the institutional dynamics and impact to date of the European Council. Following opening remarks from former EP President Hans-Gert Pöttering, the European Council’s first President Herman van Rompuy (2009-2014) gave a keynote speech on his experience as EUCO President in the midst of the eurozone crisis. Secretary-General of the Council, Jeppe Tranholm-Mikkelsen then addressed recent and future European Council developments and notably mentioned the Bratislava Declaration, the Leaders’ Agenda and the Strategic Agenda 2019-2024. Together with the other panellists, Former Member Ana Gomes, and Desmond Dinan, Professor of Public Policy at George Mason University, the panel discussed whether the activities of the European Council had effectively had an impact on policy outcomes. All participants agreed on the importance of the planned conference on the future of Europe, while advocating that the focus should lie on concrete policy achievements, rather than on treaty revision, as the current institutional framework provides the necessary instruments to deliver on Europeans’ demands. Closing the discussion, former Member Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl recalled the spirit of the Lisbon Treaty, namely to strengthen the community method, stressing that the last 10 years have witnessed a power shift towards the European Council.

To accompany the event, EPRS European Council Oversight Unit (ECOS) Policy Analysts Suzana Elena Anghel and Ralf Drachenberg published a study on ‘The European Council under the Lisbon Treaty: How has the institution evolved since 2009?‘.

To watch the discussion: https://www.facebook.com/EuroparlFMA/

Written by Angelos Delivorias and Christian Scheinert,

© Giulio Benzina / Shutterstock

In response to the financial and economic crisis, the European Union introduced a series of changes to its institutional architecture for economic and social governance, with the aim of achieving more integrated fiscal and economic coordination. At the heart of this new architecture is the ‘European Semester’, a process of socio-economic policy coordination that lasts from November until July each year, in which Member States discuss their economic reform and budget plans before adopting them, while the European institutions monitor progress and address recommendations at specific times throughout the year.

At the centre of the European Semester are three separate processes that work in parallel: fiscal surveillance based mainly on the stability and growth pact (SGP); surveillance of macroeconomic policies, under the macroeconomic imbalance procedure (MIP); and coordination of EU countries’ economic and employment policies, based on the integrated guidelines (in other words, the broad economic policy guidelines (BEPGs), together with the employment guidelines).

The Semester officially starts every November with the publication of the Annual Growth Survey and the Alert Mechanism Report (along with other documents) by the European Commission. Another ‘milestone’ is in February, when the country reports and (when required) in-depth reviews are published for Member States. In April, the Member States publish their stability or convergence programmes. In May comes another milestone, with the publication of the country-specific recommendations.

After July, the ‘European’ Semester, is followed by a ‘National’ Semester, where Member States incorporate what has been discussed and recommended at European level into their national draft budgets, which are then debated and adopted during the autumn.

During its limited existence, the Semester has been debated and examined by academics and institutions alike. The main points of discussion relate to parliamentary involvement in the Semester (notably linked to broader issues of legitimacy and accountability of the wider framework of economic governance), the country-specific recommendations and their declining level of implementation, as well as the role that the regions could play in the context of the Semester.

This overview touches on the latest factors that could have an impact on the process: the priorities that the new European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, has addressed to Commissioners Paolo Gentiloni and Valdis Dombrovskis in her mission letters. While those priorities were articulated very succinctly, they could provide a useful idea of how the Semester might evolve over the new Commission’s term.

Read this ‘in-depth analysis’ on ‘Introduction to the European Semester: Coordinating and monitoring economic and fiscal policies in the EU‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Tambiama Madiega with Anna Meriel Nichols,

Background

© ibreakstock / Fotolia

The ‘right to be forgotten’ (or ‘dereferencing‘) refers to the fact that residents in the European Union (EU) can request that information about them, which appears when searching for their name on the internet, be delisted and therefore made inaccessible.

In the EU, the ‘right to be forgotten’ was first articulated in the 2014 Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos case brought before the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU). Article 17 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), applicable since 25 May 2018, enshrines a ‘right to erasure’ in EU law, which encompasses the ‘right to be forgotten’. On this basis, people living in the EU now routinely ask search engines like Google to take down links to their personal information.

Internet users in the EU have increasingly used the right to dereferencing. Since June 2014, Google has processed more than 850 000 dereferencing requests and Google has ultimately delisted more than 1.3 million website addresses. (See Google transparency report).

However, the implementation of the ‘right to be forgotten’ has proven difficult and the territorial scope of this right has been challenged before the CJEU.

In Case 507/17 Google v CNIL, decided in September 2019, the CJEU provided some guidance on the implementation of the ‘right to be forgotten’. The Court held that, as matter of principle, search engine operators are not required to carry out a worldwide dereferencing order (i.e. on all versions of its search engine), but should implement an EU-wide dereferencing order (i.e. on all EU versions of its search engine), to ensure a consistent and high level of data protection throughout the EU. The Court also recalls that a balance must be struck between data protection and privacy rights and the right to freedom of information when making a dereferencing order, in line with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. Search engine operators must also implement geo-blocking measures to prevent, or at least seriously discourage, internet users in Member States from gaining access to dereferenced links within the EU.

The Google v CNIL decision has provoked significant reaction from stakeholders, civil society advocacy groups and academics. As the CJEU did not completely rule out worldwide dereferencing orders, questions as to the extraterritorial application of the ‘right to be forgotten’ and the potential conflict of rules and jurisdictions have been raised, while an increasing number of countries outside the EU are embedding such a right in their national legislation. In addition, the CJEU decision has sparked debates about the use of geoblocking techniques, the need for international standards, and how to strike a balance between privacy and protection of personal data and the right to freedom of information.

This Keysource gathers key documents, analyses and stakeholders’ views to throw a light on the issues at stake. It is the bibliographic companion to the EPRS At a glance publication: European Court of Justice limits the territorial scope of the ‘right to be forgotten’ (October 2019), which outlines the legal framework and CJEU decisions on the right to be forgotten in detail.

1. General sources of information

• Court of Justice of the European Union, Press release: The operator of a search engine is not required to carry out a de-referencing on all versions of its search engine, 24 September 2019.
• European Commission, Eurobarometer Special Report: The General Data Protection Regulation, Eurobarometer, March 2019.

This survey intends to compile citizen awareness of the GDPR and more general opinions and behaviours relating to data sharing and data protection.

• European Commission, Factsheet on the Right to be Forgotten ruling, (undated).

This factsheet, which was published following the Google Spain ruling, provides some guidelines on the implementation of the right to be forgotten.

• Article 29 Working Party, guidelines on the implementation of the Court of Justice decision in the Google Spain judgment, 2014.

The Article 29 Working Party (now the European Data Protection Board), an EU advisory body on data protection, issued guidelines on the implementation of the Google Spain judgment.

2. Analysis Territorial scope and extraterritorial application of EU law

• Case C-507/17 Google v CNIL: The Territorial Scope of the Right to be Forgotten Under EU Law, European Law Blog, 29 October 2019.

This article examines the implications of the judgment for EU residents and comments on the significance of the decision as a means for testing how far the EU can expand its data protection standards beyond its territory. It also discusses how setting a ‘floor, not a ceiling’ for dereferencing obligations preserves Member State abilities to impose global dereferencing orders and the EU’s ability to position itself as the standard-bearer for data protection regulations.

• Facebook’s liability for defamatory posts: the CJEU interprets the E-Commerce Directive, Lorna Woods, EU Law Analysis, 9 October 2019.

This article compares the ‘diverging’ approaches to territorial scope in the CNIL case and Case C-18/18 Glawischnig-Piesczek v Facebook Ireland. In particular, it asks ‘to what extent is there a coherent approach to issues arising from the internet across the various legal measures that intersect with it?’

• Court of Justice in Google v CNIL sees no objection in principle to EU ‘Right to be forgotten’ leading to worldwide delisting orders, Geert Van Calster, GAVC Law, October 2019.

In this post, the author compares the outcome of the final decision with the non-binding Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar, and outlines how he sees the CJEU’s approach aligning with that of the United States Supreme Court on similar cases.

• The Global Implications of the CJEU’s Ruling in Google’s ‘Right to be Forgotten’ Case, Costanza Manavello and Laura Di Tecco, IPWatchdog 16 October 2019.

This article provides a commentary on the ‘general implications’ of the case, in particular the jurisdiction of delisting orders, and compares to the CJEU approach to the legal framework for the territorial scope of a right to be forgotten to the approach in the USA.

• Three Things to Remember from Europe’s ‘Right to be Forgotten’ Decisions, Andrew Keane Woods, LawFare Blog, 1 October 2019.

This article outlines why the outcome of the CNIL case was a ‘win’ for Google, simultaneously leaving ‘the door wide open … for future extraterritorial regulations of the internet’.

• The Judgment That Will be Forgotten, Oskar Gstrein, Verfassungsblog, 25 September 2019.

This piece argues that the CNIL judgment de facto approves geoblocking and gives rise to potential fragmentation of data protection enforcement.

• The Right Tools: Europe’s Intermediary Liability Laws and the EU 2016 General Data Protection Regulation, Daphne Keller, Berkeley Tech. L.J. 287 (2018), 4 September 2018.

This article examines ‘whether and how the right to be forgotten may apply to user-generated content hosts like Twitter or Facebook’.

• Google v CNIL: Defining the Territorial Scope of European Data Protection Law, Michele Finck, Oxford Business Law Blog, November 2018.

While this article was published before the CNIL judgment was issued, it explains the arguments on both sides regarding territoriality and the enforcement of the right to be forgotten in the case, and provides a background summary of the key points from the Google Spain decision.

• Right to Erasure (right to be forgotten) under the GDPR, EU Law Analysis, 25 May 2018.

This link provides the reader with an overview of the relevant GDPR provisions and CJEU case law pertaining to a right to be forgotten in the EU.

Balancing rights

• Do Europeans have a right to be globally delisted? Allison Davenport, Wikimedia Foundation, 24 September 2019.

This article outlines the positive and negative effects of the decision for the right to freedom of information, including the protection of access to knowledge and the matter of delisting by geography rather than language.

• The right to be forgotten: context and the problem of time, Paul Lambert, Communications Law 2019, 24(2), 74-79.

This book extract examines how the right to be forgotten’s ability to protect the privacy of individuals may change in significance over time. It also sets out how unpredictable societal change will compel organisations to realise that ‘knowing there is a RtBF provision in the GDPR is enough on its own’.

3. Stakeholder views

• Electronic Frontier Foundation, European Court’s Decision in Right To Be Forgotten Case is a Win for Free Speech, 26 September 2019.

The EFF is an advocacy group focusing on the protection of access to developing technology, and a third party to the hearings in the CNIL case. Their comments following the judgment provide an insight into the US orientation towards the protection of free speech online. A copy of the EFF’s intervention to the case can be accessed here.

• Article 19, Google win in right to be forgotten case is victory for global freedom of expression, 24 September 2019.

Article 19 is an advocacy group for freedom of expression rights, which intervened in the CJEU hearings on behalf of a coalition of free speech organisations. The group has applauded the outcome of the case, stating that ‘Courts or data regulators in the United Kingdom, France or Germany should not be able to determine the search results that internet users in America, India or Argentina get to see’.

• Computer and Communications Industry Association, EU Top Court: Europe’s ‘Right to be Forgotten’ Does Not Apply Globally, 24 September 2019.

The CCIA advocates internationally for ‘enhancing society’s access to information and communications.’ In this press release it stresses its satisfaction with the balance the court struck between freedom of information and the rights of citizens outside the EU.

• Multistakeholder Expert Group to the Commission, Report from Multistakeholder Expert Group to support the application of Regulation 2016/679, Multistakeholder Expert Group to support the application of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, 13 June 2019.

The Multistakeholder Expert Group was ‘established to assist the Commission in identifying the potential challenges in the application of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) from the perspective of different stakeholders, and to advise the Commission on how to address them.’ The group shares its opinions of Article 17 GDPR on pp.7-9.

• European Digital Rights, Advocate General issues two Opinions on ‘right to be forgotten’, 10 January 2019.

EDRi is an international advocacy group for digital rights. In this piece, they outline their response to the Advocate General’s opinion in the Google v CNIL case, and include links to their previous opinions on the right to be forgotten.

• Google, Defending access to lawful information in Europe’s highest court, Kent Walker, 15 November 2017.

Walker, general counsel for Google, published this post when the CJEU decision on the Google CNIL fine was pending, and provides some insight into Google’s perspective on dereferencing order litigation.

4. International outlook Doctrinal sources

The Judgment That Will be Forgotten, Oskar Gstrein, Verfassungsblog, 25 September 2019.

Part of this article argues that ‘the right to be forgotten is not a European concept‘, and that the CNIL judgment failed to consider how other countries have approached these cases. It compares the extent of developments in right to be forgotten jurisprudence in the EU to several other countries, and notes that ‘more than 25 percent of the nations on earth have already seen considerable legal developments in the area of a right to be forgotten, including regulation and court judgments.’

Article 8, the Right to be Forgotten and the Media, Hugh Tomlinson QC and Aidan Wills, International Forum for Responsible Media Blog, July 2018.

This review of the M.L. and W.W. v Germany case provides an overview of the criteria used to decide on delisting questions at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). It comments on the parallels between the ECtHR and the approach in the Google Spain case, and outlines why a dereferencing request may be more ‘powerful’ against search engine operators or internet platforms than primary publishers such as news publications.

The ‘Right to be Forgotten’ Online within G20 Statutory Data Protection Frameworks, David Erdos and Krzysztof Gartska, University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Research Paper No 31/2019, September 2019.

This paper argues that the ‘basic underpinnings [of a right to be forgotten] are present in the great majority of G20 statutory frameworks. Whilst China, India, Saudi Arabia and the United States remain exceptional cases, fifteen out of nineteen (almost 80 %) of G20 countries now have fully-fledged statutory data protection laws. By default, almost all of these laws empower individuals to challenge the continued dissemination of personal data, not only when such data may be inaccurate but also on wider legitimacy grounds.’

National legislation

Argentina

The Right to Be Forgotten, Michael Kelly and David Satola, Illinois Law Review, January 2017.

The most prominent right to be forgotten case in Argentina arose in 2009, in the Virginia da Cunha case. This article gives an overview of the case and its ramifications from pp.28-31.

Australia

Data and Digital Rights: Recent Australian Developments, Goggin et al, Internet Policy Review, March 2019.

This paper explores proposals relating to data privacy rights from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC)’s Digital Platforms, and from a government-mandated creation of a Consumer Data Right.

Brazil

Non-Compliance with Judicial Requests for Content Removal, Bloqueios, January 2007.

Questions on the enforceability of dereferencing orders arose in Brazil in 2007, when one of the country’s largest fixed-line telephone operators responded to a judicial order to remove a video of model Daniela Cicarelli from Youtube, which resulted in Youtube being blocked in large parts of the country. The link above provides an overview of and analysis of the materials in English relating to the case.

Canada

Draft OPC Position on Online Reputation, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, 26 January 2018.

The Privacy Commissioner lists ‘Reputation and Privacy’ as one of its strategic priorities for 2015-2020. Its draft position includes sections dedicated to De-Indexing, Source Amendment / Takedown and Legislative Solutions.

Japan

Right to be Forgotten: A New Privacy Right in the Era of Internet, Yuriko Haga, September 2017.

This chapter outlines the history and current situation regarding a potential right to be forgotten in Japan (section 5), including the appearance of cases against search engines since 2008, and the influence of the Google Spain judgment on more recent cases.

Other countries

The Right to be Forgotten – the EU and Asia Pacific Experience (Australia, Indonesia, Japan and Singapore), Zeller et al, European Human Rights Law Review 2019 volume 1, p.23, UNSW Law Research Paper No 19-2, 23 January 2019.

The following articles and reports include further examples of countries where reference to a right to be forgotten has appeared in court judgments, statutes, or draft legislation:

• Colombia
• Chile
• Israel
• Peru, Mexico, Kenya, Russia
• Indonesia
• Singapore.

 

Written by Giulio Sabbati,
In cooperation with Olga Griaznova (from GlobalStat | EUI),

Mercosur, the ‘southern common market’, was founded in 1991 when Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay signed the Treaty of Asunción. In 2012, Venezuela formally joined Mercosur as a fifth member, but in December 2016 the country was suspended temporarily for failure to transpose Mercosur rules into Venezuelan law. In August 2017, the suspension was prolonged indefinitely. This paper presents economic indicators for the four members, for example showing their GDP and labour market situations, and it also shows those countries’ relative positions on several indexes that assess the situation in terms of doing business, corruption and human development. Finally, it looks at trade between the EU and Mercosur – of both goods and services – highlighting the main trading partners, and the main products and services that the EU exports to and imports from the four Mercosur members.

Download this infographic on ‘Mercosur: Economic indicators and trade with EU‘ in PDF.

GlobalStat, a project of the EUI’s Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies and the Francisco Manuel dos Santos Foundation aims to offer the best available gateway to statistical data. It is easily accessible, intuitive to use, and free of charge. In just three clicks it offers data from 1960 onwards for 193 UN countries, five continents and 12 political and regional entities – including the European Union – gathered from over 80 international sources. The project, presents data as diverse as income distribution, water resources, housing, migration, land use, food production, nutrition, or life expectancy, which contributes to a better understanding of the interrelations between human living conditions and globalisation trends.

Written by Gisela Grieger,

© Andy Wong / APImages

Space for freedom of thought is shrinking dramatically across the globe, as the geo-political and geo-economic clout of authoritarian regimes expands. The Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought is therefore more important than ever: it enables the European Parliament to draw attention to the plight of those who stand up against the repression of human rights and fundamental freedoms, principles on which the EU is based and which it promotes in its external relations, in line with Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union. The 2019 Sakharov Prize laureate is renowned Uyghur economics professor Ilham Tohti, a moderate advocate of the rights of the Uyghur minority and of dialogue with the Han majority in China. In 2014, he was sentenced to life imprisonment on separatism-related charges, against the backdrop of China’s hardening policy of countering religious extremism, ethnic separatism and terrorism – one that now frames Uyghur identity as a major national security threat. The Sakharov Prize is a €50 000 award, which will be presented at a ceremony in the European Parliament during the December plenary session in Strasbourg, in the presence of the other finalists.

Significance of the Sakharov Prize

Every year, since 1988, the European Parliament has awarded the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought to individuals or organisations for outstanding achievements in defending human rights and fundamental freedoms – notably the right to freedom of expression; safeguarding the rights of minorities; upholding international law; developing democracy; or implementing the rule of law. The prize was initiated by a 1985 parliamentary resolution adopted in memory of Andrei Sakharov, the eminent Soviet-Russian nuclear physicist, 1975 Nobel Peace Prize winner, dissident and human rights activist. The prize symbolises Sakharov’s courageous defence of human rights, notably the freedom of thought and expression, and personal freedom, that were at times denied him during his professional career.

Award procedure and the 2019 Sakharov Prize finalists and laureate

Candidates for the Sakharov Prize can be nominated by a political group, or at least 40 Members of the European Parliament (MEPs). From the list of nominees, three finalists are then shortlisted by MEPs in a joint vote of the Committees on Foreign Affairs and Development. For the 2019 Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought the finalists were: 1) Ilham Tohti; 2) murdered Brazilian political activist and human rights defender, Marielle Franco, native Brazilian leader and environmentalist, Chief Raoni, and Brazilian environmentalist and human rights defender, Claudelice Silva dos Santos; and 3) The Restorers, a group of five students from Kenya – Stacy Owino, Cynthia Otieno, Purity Achieng, Mascrine Atieno and Ivy Akinyi – who have developed i-Cut, an app to help girls affected by female genital mutilation.

On 24 October 2019, Parliament’s Conference of Presidents decided to honour Ilham Tohti with the 2019 Sakharov Prize. When announcing the decision, Parliament’s President, David Sassoli, stressed that Ilham Tohti had been ‘a voice of moderation and reconciliation’. He added that by ‘awarding this prize, we strongly urge the Chinese government to release Tohti and we call for the respect of minority rights in China’. Ilham Tohti, a liberal Uyghur intellectual, who was previously nominated in 2016, is the third Chinese winner, and the first-ever Uyghur to receive the prize. Wei Jingsheng, who in 1978 called for ‘The Fifth Modernisation: democracy‘, as China launched its economic reform and opening up policy, was awarded the prize in 1996, a year before he was released from prison to his US exile. Hu Jia, a dissident and democracy activist, was awarded the prize in 2008, three years before he was released from prison. Commenting on the 2019 award, a spokesperson for China’s foreign ministry reportedly said: ‘I hope that Europe can respect China’s internal affairs and judicial sovereignty, and avoid celebrating a terrorist’. The 42nd EU-China Inter-parliamentary meeting, scheduled for 12 November 2019, and the related programme, were cancelled owing to the unavailability of the Chinese delegation.

Ilham Tohti – a voice for the entire Uyghur people

Ilham Tohti was born in 1969 in China’s north-western Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) which is home to about 10 million Turkic-speaking Uyghurs (about 45 % of the XUAR population) who practise a moderate form of Sunni Islam and enjoy close ethnic and cultural ties with Central Asian countries. Professor Tothi lectured at the Beijing-based Minzu University for ethnic minority studies, and published critical analyses on the impact of the Chinese government’s assimilation policies on the cultural, social, economic, political and religious life of Uyghurs. In 2006, he set up the Chinese language website ‘UighurBiz.cn‘ as a platform for inter-ethnic exchange between Han Chinese and Uyghurs. The website was shut down when Ilham Tothi was accused of having contributed through his website to the 2009 violent attacks perpetrated by Uyghur militants in the XUAR cities of Urumqi and Kashgar. Despite being outspoken in his advocacy of regional autonomy laws, Tohti was opposed to radical separatist movements, standing rather for dialogue and reconciliation with the Han majority. In 2014, after he had reportedly challenged the Chinese government’s version of violent incidents involving Uyghurs, he was detained and, after a two-day show trial, sentenced to life in prison allegedly for ‘separatism‘. As researcher Darren Byler put it: ‘Now, like Ilham, they [both Uyghur students and public intellectuals] realised that all of them could be accused of ‘separatism’. There was no space to publicly suggest ways to oppose the elimination of Uyghur culture’.

Since his sentencing in 2014, Ilham Tohti has been awarded the 2014 PEN/Barbara Goldsmith Freedom to Write Award, the 2016 Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders, and the 2017 Liberal International Prize for Freedom. In October 2019, he won the Council of Europe’s Václav Havel Human Rights Prize.

China’s approach to counter-terrorism, de-radicalisation and de-extremification

Since Xinjiang became part of China in 1949, successive Chinese governments have sought to integrate the predominantly rural Uyghurs economically and culturally, first with soft approaches, boosting economic development and respecting ethnic differences, but mainly benefiting incoming urban Han Chinese migrants. Later, government launched ‘strike hard’ campaigns, as deepening inter-ethnic socio-economic cleavages bred violence from Uyghur militants. The appearance of Uyghur foreign fighters in Syria in 2014 highlighted the interlinkages between the internal and external dimensions of the three interconnected threats to China’s concept of stability – religious extremism, ethnic separatism and terrorism. China has stepped up the security element of its strategy for countering these ‘three evils’, and has linked them to the distinctiveness of Uyghur identity. As a result, the XUAR’s public security budget has ballooned, leading to a pervasive and intrusive policing system reliant on ubiquitous cutting-edge surveillance cameras, ethnicity-sensitive facial recognition systems and an algorithm-based big-data analysis platform to identify politically ‘untrustworthy’ people. Since 2017, China has built a well-documented grid of ‘de-extremification’ mass internment camps whose existence it at first denied and then called ‘vocational re-education and training centres’ on the basis of 2018 XUAR legislation. The camps host an estimated one to two million Uyghurs, and other Muslim minorities, who are politically indoctrinated and have the cultural and religious features of their identity systematically eradicated, as China associates them with ‘extremist’ behaviour. China has justified the camps as successful preventive de-radicalisation measures that it appears keen to export.

Global responses to China’s extra-judicial detention camps and high-tech illiberalism

In recent years, Parliament has systematically denounced massive violations of the Uyghur minority’s human rights, in resolutions adopted in 2016, 2018 and 2019. The case of Ilham Tohti was raised during the 2019 EU-China Human Rights Dialogue. Western governments have criticised China’s Uyghur policy in the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council and in the UN Third Committee in 2019, prompting a group of other countries, including Muslim countries, to release joint statements defending China. The US Congress has adopted the Uighur Intervention and Global Humanitarian Unified Response Act of 2019. The US has banned the import of products made by firms in Xinjiang over their use of forced labour. It has also issued visa restrictions on key Chinese officials, and blacklisted 28 Chinese firms, including Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology, the Chinese government’s main supplier of surveillance gear. The firm enjoys close ties with the Chinese government, and has come under scrutiny in some EU countries for its involvement in the repression of Uyghurs in China. The leaked ‘China Cables‘/’Xinjiang papers’ give clear evidence of the repression that China has staunchly denied, and may prompt more actors to actually ‘walk the talk’.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘2019 Sakharov Prize laureate: Ilham Tohti‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Ralf Drachenberg and Suzana Anghel,

© glen photo / Shutterstock.com

At the meeting of EU Heads of State or Government in December 2019, the first to be presided over by Charles Michel, EU leaders will meet in three different formats: a regular European Council, a European Council (Article 50) meeting, and an inclusive Euro Summit. The main issues on the agenda of the European Council are climate change, with EU leaders expected to endorse the objective of climate-neutrality for the Union by 2050, and the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), with a discussion, for the first time, on the basis of figures proposed by the Finnish Presidency of the Council, as well as on the procedure for reaching agreement. They will also address the idea of a Conference on the Future of Europe, with the aim of developing a joint position of Member States on the initiative. The European Council (Article 50) meeting is expected to discuss the result of the general election in the UK (taking place on 12 December) and the likely consequences for the Brexit process, as well as preparations for the negotiations on future EU-UK relations. The Euro Summit will concentrate on the revision of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) Treaty, the budgetary instrument for convergence and competitiveness (BICC), and technical work on the strengthening of the banking union.

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

As announced in the October 2019 European Council conclusions, EU leaders will return to the issues of the MFF for the 2021-27 period, and climate change, as reflected in the annotated draft agenda.

Policy area Previous commitment Occasion on which the commitment was made MFF In the light of this discussion, it calls on the Presidency to submit a Negotiating Box with figures ahead of the European Council in December 2019 October 2019 Climate change Finalise its guidance on the EUʼs long-term strategy on climate change October 2019

At the start of the European Council meeting, the President of the European Parliament, David Sassoli, will address the Heads of State or Government. Sanna Marin, newly appointed Prime Minister of Finland, which currently holds the rotating six-month presidency of the Council of Ministers, will provide an overview of progress made in implementing previous European Council conclusions. This meeting will also be the first European Council to be presided over by Charles Michel, previously Prime Minister of Belgium, who took over as President of the European Council on 1 December.

2. European Council meeting Climate change

The ‘objective of achieving a climate-neutral EU by 2050’ will be the main and most sensitive issue for the European Council to consider. For the moment, Member States are still seeking agreement on this objective, which is a prerequisite for the successful implementation of the European Green Deal announced by the new European Commission. Building consensus for the effective ‘endorsement’ of the objective of climate-neutrality by 2050 will be Charles Michel’s first major challenge as new European Council President. He has called the European Green Deal a ‘peace treaty with nature’, and committed to ‘work to “convince” all Member States to agree’ on this objective. Earlier attempts to achieve consensus were not fully successful, therefore resulting in the inclusion of a footnote in the June 2019 European Council conclusions, which acknowledged that ‘for a large majority of Member States, climate neutrality must be achieved by 2050’.

Climate is increasingly a horizontal issue, mainstreamed in all EU policies. Its funding is a key element for the EU’s credibility. EU leaders are expected to agree that a ‘significant percentage’ of the next MFF should be allocated to climate change. The Heads of State or Government will probably also discuss investment to support a ‘just and socially balanced transition’. Several Member States, which fear a negative impact of the green transition on their regions, notably Poland, consider that the acceptance of the principle of a socially balanced transition is needed as a guarantee for their support for the climate-neutrality objective. The forthcoming Just Transition Fund announced by the new Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, would support those regions be most affected by the green transition. In the absence of an agreement on climate targets, the Just Transition Fund, although mentioned in earlier drafts of the October 2019 European Council conclusions, was removed from the final version.

Global CO2 emissions have risen by four per cent compared to pre-Paris Agreement levels, with the EU at risk of being unable to meet its 2020 climate targets. In the context of its 2030 targets, it is urgent for Member States to finalise their national long-term greenhouse-gas emissions strategies, and to communicate them to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in the first quarter of 2020, in compliance with the Paris Agreement. The European Parliament has called on Member States ‘to consider aviation and shipping’ in their national plans and to double their contributions to the UN Green Climate Fund. At its March 2019 meeting, the European Council called for ‘the timely finalisation of the national-long term strategies’. At that point, only four Member States (Czechia, France, Germany and the United Kingdom) had submitted their contributions. In the meantime, the number has increased to five with the submission of the Portuguese contribution.

The European Council will most probably concentrate on several other items as part of its climate debate. These include, inter alia, the mooted carbon border tax and energy security, as well as means to counter climate-related aspects of distortions to the internal market generated by foreign subsidies to foreign-owned companies in the EU. The European Council has already stressed that there is a need to address the ‘distortive effects’ of such subsidies. Furthermore, ahead of the European Council, the European Commission is expected to present proposals for the first ever ‘European Climate Law’.

The European Council could also consider the external dimension of climate action by stressing the EU’s climate diplomacy role in fulfilling the 2019-24 Strategic Agenda objective to globally lead ‘the way forward in the fight against climate change’.

Multiannual Financial Framework

The European Council is expected to hold a substantive discussion on the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). On 2 December, the Finnish Presidency of the Council presented a negotiating box with figures. The Finnish proposal envisages a budget of 1.06 % of the EU’s gross national income (GNI) for 2021-2027, which is significantly lower than the proposals of the European Commission (1.114 %) and Parliament (1.3 %). Nevertheless, some Member States call for the MFF to be set at 1.0 %. The proposal from the Finnish Presidency also makes reference to the introduction of a general regime of conditionality ‘to tackle identified instances of general deficiencies as regards the rule of law in Member States’.

Concerning own resources, the Finnish proposal considers the possible introduction of national contributions for non-recycled plastic packaging, as well as a share of the revenues of the Emissions Trading System. Here again, the proposals of the Commission (e.g. call rate applied to the new Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base) and the Parliament’s requests (e.g. digital services taxation, a financial transaction tax, income from the emissions trading scheme, and a carbon border adjustment mechanism) go beyond what the Council currently seems willing to agree on.

Members of the European Council are not expected to reach an agreement on the substance of the MFF at this meeting, but to agree a methodology for reaching consensus. An extraordinary European Council meeting is being considered for early in the New Year, with a view to a possible agreement at the scheduled March 2020 meeting.

On 10 October 2019, the new European Parliament adopted a resolution on the MFF, reiterating that ‘Parliament will not rubber-stamp a fait accompli from the European Council’, and calling on the latter institution to ‘refrain from adopting detailed and purportedly binding conclusions based on the MFF negotiating box, as this would amount to direct interference in the legislative sphere’.

External relations

The European Council is expected to discuss external relations issues. EU leaders could take stock of the evolution of the situation in Ukraine, including the implementation of the Minsk Agreements, and green-light the renewal of the economic sanctions imposed on Russia following the illegal annexation of Crimea. Following the 9 December 2019 Foreign Affairs Council, the EU leaders might call, once again, to strengthen the EU-Africa partnership and to speed up work on the forthcoming comprehensive strategy on Africa announced by the new European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen.

Other items Conference on the Future of Europe

The European Council is also expected to discuss the proposal for a Conference on the Future of Europe. The idea was first suggested by the French President, Emmanuel Macron, in March 2019, and was subsequently supported by the new Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, before her election by the Parliament. She indicated that she would also consider Treaty change if the outcome of the conference were to require such a step. The notion of Treaty change elicited little enthusiasm from EU Heads of State or Government when presenting their views on the Future of Europe in the European Parliament in 2018-2019. Recently, France and Germany have made a joint proposal outlining their views. For more information, please see the EPRS Briefing, Preparing the Conference on the Future of Europe.

As there is currently no agreed position between the Member States, the European Council is expected to invite the incoming Council Presidency (Croatia) to work towards defining a Council position on the content, scope, composition and functioning of such a conference. This position is likely to emphasise that the conference should as a matter of priority focus on the development of the EU’s policies in the medium and long term, building on the recent citizens’ dialogues. The European Council is likely to underline the need for an inclusive process and shared ownership by European institutions and Member States. In this context, the European Council is also expected to recall the importance of implementing the Strategic Agenda 2019-24.

3. European Council (Article 50) meeting

On 13 December, EU-27 leaders will discuss preparations for the negotiations on future EU-UK relations, notably a negotiating mandate for future trade talks. The result of the UK general election, to be held the previous day, on 12 December, will likely play an important role in the next stage of the withdrawal process, as well as in the shape of the future relationship.

According to Article 50(3) TEU, the Treaties cease to apply to the withdrawing country from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification, unless the European Council, in agreement with the withdrawing country, unanimously decides to extend this period. Following unsuccessful attempts by the UK to ratify the withdrawal agreement and two extensions of the period under Article 50(3), the European Council, on 29 October 2019, approved a third extension to allow for more time for the ratification of the revised withdrawal agreement, until 31 January 2020, at the latest.

4. Euro Summit

On Friday 13 December, EU-27 leaders will meet for a Euro Summit to follow-up on the discussion last June on the deepening of Economic and Monetary Union (EMU).

The Euro Summit will take stock of progress made since the June statement and consider in particular the revision of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) Treaty, the budgetary instrument for convergence and competitiveness (BICC), and technical work on strengthening the banking union. The Eurogroup, which reports directly to the EU leaders, met to prepare these topics on 4 December.

Ahead of the Euro Summit meeting, President Charles Michel met with the President of the European Commission, the President of the European Central Bank, and the President of the Eurogroup to discuss recent economic developments. They reflected on seven consecutive years of growth and record high employment levels in Europe. According to Michel, uncertainties in the international context are the main reason for risks to the economic outlook. In his opinion, it is essential to deepen EMU and strengthen the banking union, so as to ensure that sustainable economic growth and more jobs can be created. The President of the European Council plans to hold similar meetings ahead of every Euro Summit.

Read this briefing on ‘Outlook for the meetings of EU leaders on 12-13 December 2019‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

© European Union – EP, 2019

The European Parliament regularly receives questions from citizens about the European Youth Event. Are you interested too? Find out how you can take part!

The European Youth Event (also known as EYE) is a two-day event bringing thousands of young Europeans together in the European Parliament’s Strasbourg headquarters.

The EYE gives young people an opportunity to take part in political debates, workshops and other activities, and to interact with leading EU figures and decision-makers. Each event is also a venue for young people to voice their ideas on how to improve Europe and the world.

The event is organised by the European Parliament in cooperation with the European Youth Forum and other organisations.

Practical arrangements for EYE2020

The next edition of the European Youth Event will take place at the European Parliament in Strasbourg on 29-30 May 2020.

Groups of at least 10 people aged 16 to 30 – from the European Union and beyond – can sign up to the event. Registration opens in January 2020 on the European Parliament website.

Attending the EYE is free of charge. However, participants have to cover their own transport and accommodation costs and pay for their own meals.

The languages used at the event are English, French and German.

If you cannot attend the event in person, you will be able to follow some of the activities online and participate via social media.

Previous editions

The first edition of the European Youth Event (EYE2014) was held from 9-11 May 2014. It served as a platform for participants to share their ideas and opinions on issues such as youth unemployment, the digital revolution, the future of the EU, sustainability and European values.

EYE2016, held on 20 and 21 May 2016, gave over 7 500 young Europeans the opportunity to discuss a variety of themes under the event’s slogan: ‘Together we can make a change’.

At the latest edition of the event, EYE2018, held in Strasbourg on 1-2 June 2018, close to 9 000 young Europeans got together to discuss issues and came up with 100 ideas on how to improve Europe.

 

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

Further information

• European Youth Event, European Parliament.
• European Youth Event on Facebook and Twitter.

Written by Gregor Erbach,

© Waraporn Wattanakul / Shutterstock

The European Green Deal is a programme outlined in the political guidelines of the incoming President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen. It aims to make Europe the first climate-neutral continent by 2050, while boosting the competitiveness of European industry and ensuring a just transition for the regions and workers affected. Preserving Europe’s natural environment and biodiversity, a ‘farm to fork’ strategy for sustainable food, and a new circular economy action plan are other key elements. Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans will be in charge of leading and coordinating the work on the European Green Deal. A Commission communication on the matter is expected on 11 December, ahead of the next European Council meeting, starting the following day. The European Parliament has scheduled a debate on the European Green Deal in an extraordinary plenary session on 11 December 2019.

Background

The EU is committed to taking action to limit global warming to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, in line with the 2015 Paris Agreement. In November 2018, the Commission adopted the ‘clean planet for all‘ strategy, aiming for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate-neutral economy by 2050. It analyses scenarios for long-term decarbonisation, as a basis for a debate on the move towards an emission-neutral economy. Following up on the Commission’s clean planet strategy, the EU will develop its long-term low-carbon strategy under the Paris Agreement. The European Council intends to finalise its guidance before the end of the year, with a view to the adoption and submission of the EU’s long-term strategy to the United Nations climate change secretariat in early 2020. This is also a priority for the current Finnish Presidency of the Council. In line with the previous European Parliament’s position, a large majority of Member States favour climate neutrality in the EU by 2050, but the June 2019 European Council could not reach a unanimous conclusion on the date.

Main issues

According to von der Leyen’s political guidelines, making Europe the first climate-neutral continent is the ‘greatest challenge and opportunity of our times’. Von der Leyen aims to put forward the proposals for the European Green Deal within the first 100 days of the new Commission’s mandate. This will include a new ‘European Climate Law’ that sets a climate-neutrality target for 2050. Pricing of carbon emissions is mentioned as a key element to ensure the contribution of every person and every sector. The Emissions Trading System (ETS) would be extended to the maritime sector, and the free allowances allocated to airlines would be reduced over time. A further extension to cover traffic and construction is envisaged.

A new European Climate Pact should bring together regional and local authorities, civil society, industry and schools to agree on commitments to change behaviour. Tax policies should be reformed in line with climate ambitions, which includes work on a carbon border tax and a review of the Energy Taxation Directive.

The European Green Deal would be aligned with a new industrial strategy to make the EU a world leader in the circular economy and clean technologies, and to decarbonise energy-intensive industries. The people and regions most affected by the low-carbon transition would be supported through a just transition mechanism that cuts across different funds and instruments and also attracts private investment, as announced in von der Leyen’s speech in the European Parliament on 27 November 2019.

According to the guidelines, record amounts of public funds should be invested in advanced research and innovation, complemented by a strategy for green financing and a Sustainable Europe Investment Plan that would support €1 trillion of public and private investment over the next decade across the EU. Parts of the European Investment Bank should become Europe’s climate bank.

The von der Leyen Commission also aims for more ambitious 2030 emissions reduction targets, both in the EU and internationally. The new Commission President wants the EU to lead international negotiations to raise the ambition of other major emitters by 2021, and has pledged to put forward a comprehensive, responsible plan to increase the European Union’s emissions reduction target for 2030, from 40 % towards 55 %. The plan should ensure a level playing field and stimulate innovation, competitiveness and jobs, based on social, economic and environmental impact assessments.

A new Circular Economy Action Plan would promote sustainable use of resources, especially in resource-intensive sectors with high environmental impact, such as textiles and construction. Europe should lead on the issue of single-use plastics, and extend the fight against plastic waste to micro-plastics.

Another objective is mainstreaming biodiversity across all policy areas and a Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. Europe should lead the world at the 2020 Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Further elements of the European Green Deal include the EU’s zero-pollution ambition to safeguard citizens’ health, and a new ‘Farm to Fork’ strategy for sustainable food.

Initiatives announced in the political guidelines Legislative proposals

• European Climate Law, enshrining the 2050 climate-neutrality target in law
• Proposal to extend the EU Emissions Trading System to the maritime sector and reduce the free allowances allocated to airlines over time; and to extend this further to cover traffic and construction
• Carbon Border Tax
• Review of the Energy Taxation Directive

Strategies and Action Plans

• New industrial strategy
• Strategy for green financing and a Sustainable Europe Investment Plan
• Comprehensive plan to increase the EU emissions reduction target for 2030 towards 55 %
• ‘Farm to Fork Strategy’ on sustainable food along the whole value chain
• Cross-cutting strategy to protect citizens’ health from environmental degradation and pollution
• Biodiversity Strategy for 2030
• New Circular Economy Action Plan; tackling micro-plastics

Financing instruments

• New Just Transition Fund
• Proposal to turn parts of the European Investment Bank into Europe’s climate bank

Non-legislative initiatives

• European Climate Pact
• Lead the world at the 2020 Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity

The mission letter of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans tasks him with setting the strategic direction and chairing the Commissioners’ Group on the European Green Deal. In addition to the points mentioned in the political guidelines, he is to work on reducing the carbon footprint of the transport sector, and on ensuring that the blue economy contributes to climate objectives.

In his hearing before the European Parliament’s Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) on 8 October 2019, Timmermans promised a hydrogen strategy and a strategy for reforestation, and pledged to work towards a system to reassure consumers that imported products are not linked to deforestation. On the topic of transport, he wants Europe to have the best transportation system in the world. This would include emission-free cars and clean public transport. He advocated third-generation biofuels and investment in railways. In connection with farming, he promised to work to improve animal welfare.

References

• Hearings of the Commissioners-designate: Frans Timmermans – Vice-President: European Green Deal, EPRS, European Parliament, September 2019.
• Commitments made at the hearing of Frans Timmermans, Executive Vice-President-designate – European Green Deal, Policy Department for Economic, Scientific & Quality of Life Policies, European Parliament, November 2019.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘European Green Deal‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© hansleyfr / Shutterstock

Government officials from across the world are currently holding the 2019 United Nations Climate Change Conference, also known as COP25, focussing on how to implement the 2015 Paris Agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The conference, which will last from 2 to 13 December 2019, was moved at a short notice to Madrid in Spain, away from social unrest in Chile. Meanwhile, the new President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, is preparing a set of new climate and environmental initiatives, as part of the European Green Deal.

This note brings together commentaries, analyses and studies by major international think tanks and research institutes on climate talks and wider issues relating to climate change.

Four pillars to make or break the European Green Deal
Bruegel, November 2019

4 priorities for the COP25 climate conference in Madrid
World Resources Institute, November 2019

How to make the European Green Deal work
Bruegel, November 2019

Amid climate crisis, will governments deliver ambitious climate action in Madrid?
Heinrich Böll Stiftung, November 2019

Forest-based climate mitigation: Lessons from REDD+ implementation
World Resources Institute, November 2019

Using renewables for electric vehicle demand: A review of utility program designs and implementation strategies
World Resources Institute, November 2019

Financing climate change and sustainable growth
LSE, Gratham Institute on Climate Change, November 2019

The role of international carbon markets in a decarbonising world
New Climate Institute, November 2019

Under swollen tides, Venice says more about our future than our past
Bruegel, November 2019

Understanding decisions and disasters: A retrospective analysis of Hurricane Sandy’s ‘focusing power’ on climate change adaptation policy in New York City
World Resources Institute, November 2019

Getting to zero: A U.S. climate agenda
Centre for Climate and Energy Solution, November 2019

Demystifying carbon border adjustment for Europe’s green deal
Bruegel, October 2019

The road to restoration
World Resources Institute, October 2019

Transition towards a decarbonised electricity sector
New Climate Institute, October 2019

Towards a contemporary vision for the global seafloor
Heinrich Böll Stiftung, October 2019

Coming soon: A massive laboratory for ‘Green New Deals’
Bruegel, October 2019

A possible 2050 climate target for the EU
New Climate Institute, September 2019

Key policy issues in the Green Climate Fund: A guide for the perplexed
World Resources Institute, September 2019

Opportunities to advance mitigation ambition in China: Non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions
World Resources Institute, September 2019

Braver, greener, fairer: Memos to the EU leadership 2019-2024
Bruegel, September 2019

The future of disaster risk pooling for developing countries: Where do we go from here?
World Resources Institute, September 2019

Nature: The forgotten solution to climate change
Friends of Europe, September 2019

Cities, climate change and chronic heat exposure
LSE, Grantham Institute on Climate Change, September 2019

The IPCC special report on land: We have to act now
Heinrich Boell Stiftung, August 2019

The ambition call: European Union
New Climate Institute, August 2019

Emissions trading with rolling horizons
Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, August 2019

Planning for 2050: Shifting the focus towards long-term climate objectives
Ecologic Institute, August 2019

Border carbon tariffs: Giving up on trade to save the climate?
Bruegel, August 2019

Carbon utilization: A vital and effective pathway for decarbonization
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, August 2019

Europe’s clean energy transition: An economic opportunity, an environmental imperative
Friends of Europe, July 2019

Global Energy Outlook comparison methods: 2019 update
Resources for the Future, July 2019

Global trends in climate change litigation: 2019 snapshot
Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, July 2019

Jobs and environmental regulation
Resources for the Future, July 2019

Increase climate ambition by making policy more inclusive
Chatham House, June 2019

EU urgently needs to reverse its climate neutrality failure
Bruegel, June 2019

Polluting for profit: The paradox of the EU’s emissions trading system
Instituto Affari Internazionali, June 2019

A brief guide to the Paris agreement and ‘rulebook’
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, June 2019

The future of the EU: Compromises for expanding ordinary legislative procedure and majority voting in climate and energy policies
Ecologic Institute, June 2019

The European Parliament and climate change: Past, present and future
EUROPEUM, June 2019

EU climate diplomacy vis-à-vis Australia, Brazil and Mexico: Engaging difficult partners to enhance global ambition
College of Europe, June 2019

Good governance for long-term low-emissions development strategies
World Resources Institute, June 2019

Addressing the urgency of more stringent climate change policy
Resources for the Future, May 2019

A 100 percent renewable energy system in Europe is technically possible and economically rational
Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, May 2019

Human migration in the era of climate change
Resources for the Future, May 2019

The global consumer incidence of carbon pricing: Evidence from trade
Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, April 2019

Making climate neutrality the galvanising heart of a new economic agenda for Europe
European Policy Centre, April 2019

Institutions, climate change and the foundations of long-term policymaking
LSE, Grantham Institute on Climate Change, April 2019

Hard or soft governance? The EU’s climate and energy policy framework for 2030

Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Institute for European Studies, April 2019

What is climate resilience and why does it matter?
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, April 2019

Carbon pricing options for international maritime emissions
New Climate Institute, March 2019

Legislating for a low carbon and climate resilient transition: Learning from international experiences
Real Instituto Elcano, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, March 2019

Defining green bonds. The danger of neglecting the issuer side
Institut der Deutschen Wirtschaft Köln, February 2019

How does climate change affect optimal allocation of variable renewable energy?
Energiewirtschaftliches Institut an der Universität zu Köln, February 2019

Fighting climate change with disclosure? The real effects of mandatory greenhouse gas emission disclosure
Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, February 2019

Realizing the promise of Paris: roadmap to a safer climate
New Climate Institute for Climate Policy and Global Sustainability, Natural Resources Defense Council, January 2019

Sinking to zero: the role of carbon capture and negative emissions in EU climate policy
Centre for European Policy Studies, January 2019

Read this briefing on ‘Climate change‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Do you go on-line to share your views, or to like your friends’ photos? Or do you use a digital assistant for directions? Of course – so do many of us! We all use digital technology in our daily lives. But in doing so, we leave traces, and the more we do it, the more traces we leave. These traces are data, and when it is all brought together it can be used to predict or even influence our behaviour.
So, how can we protect our personal data?

Listen to Shara Monteleone, an EPRS policy analyst, explaining the issues in 3 key questions on Data Protection.

 

Or read more in our publications:

• GDPR goes live: A modern data protection law
• Artificial intelligence, data protection and elections
• How the General Data Protection Regulation changes the rules for scientific research