European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

Written by Aidan Christie,

© Architectes : Vandenbossche SPRL, CRV S.A., CDG S.P.R.L., Studiegroep D. Bontinck, ©Façade et Hémicycle – Arch M. Boucquillon Belgium – European Union 2019 – Source : EP

Once the last of the first round of hearings of the European Commission candidates put forward by Ursula von der Leyen concludes on Tuesday 8 October, the attention of Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) will turn to the first plenary session of the new term to be held in Brussels. The focus will still be on the hearings process, however, with decisions to be taken by the political group leaders on possible additional hearings of certain candidates, as well as hearings of the replacement nominees from Hungary and Romania.

Among the highlights of the session will be debates following statements from the Council and Commission on the forthcoming European Council meeting, and on the next multiannual financial framework (MMF) and the own resources system. As regards the first of these, the 17-18 October European Council meeting is the last one scheduled under the current leadership, with Charles Michel taking over from Donald Tusk as President on 1 December, and Jean-Claude Juncker due to hand over to Ursula von der Leyen as President of the European Commission on 1 November. Von der Leyen has been invited to attend the European Council meeting and the leaders are expected to discuss the programming for the coming five years, on the basis of the 2019-2024 Strategic Agenda agreed in June.

The other main subject to be discussed by the Heads of State or Government will be the EU’s post-2020 budget, with the Finnish Presidency of the Council outlining the progress made on narrowing the gaps between Member States’ positions on the MFF; the subject is nevertheless expected to return to the European Council’s agenda in December. The new Parliament will therefore be taking its first opportunity to outline its position on both the MFF and the own resources system in advance of the leaders’ discussion. A motion for a resolution tabled by four political groups (EPP, S&D, Renew and Greens/EFA) largely seeks to reiterate the positions adopted by Parliament during the last term.

On Wednesday evening, the High Representative/Vice-President of the Commission, Federica Mogherini, is due to make a statement on the situation in Ukraine. With the election in Ukraine of a new president, and then parliament, earlier this year, efforts have been stepped up to relaunch talks under the Normandy format. President Volodomyr Zelenskiy’s room for manoeuvre remains limited, however, and there is little sign of the commitments made under the Minsk Agreements being followed through; the conflict thus continues in the Donbass region.

On Thursday morning, there will be a debate on a report from the EMPL committee on the employment and social policies of the euro area, a contribution to the annual European Semester process. Parliament’s position is supposed to feed into the Council’s recommendations on euro-area policies, due to be adopted in November. The committee’s report emphasises the need to strengthen social rights, so that they stretch to all, as well as to develop labour market and education policies to ensure adequate social protection and address skills mismatches more effectively.

Parliament is due to vote on Thursday on draft amending budget No 4 (DAB 4/2019), in which the Commission is proposing to reduce commitment and payment appropriations for 2019, on the basis of updated needs and revenue forecasts. In its report, the Committee on Budgets voted to amend the Council’s position, seeking to redeploy savings to other major EU programmes that are currently lacking in funding. It is therefore calling on the Commission to present a new proposal along those lines. Parliament will also debate the issue of greening the European Investment Bank (EIB), with the Bank’s president taking part. This issue has gained in significance in the light of the Commission President-elect’s priority to develop a European green deal.

Written by Gregor Erbach,

© Kara / Fotolia

In February 2019, the Commission adopted a proposal to revise the EU system for monitoring, reporting and verification of CO2 emissions from maritime transport, in order to align it with the global data collection system introduced by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). The existing EU system requires ships above 5 000 gross tonnes using European ports to monitor and report fuel consumption and CO2 emissions per voyage and on an annual basis, starting with the year 2018. The IMO system requires ships above 5 000 gross tonnes on international voyages to report consumption data for fuel oil, hours underway and distance travelled. The system entered into force on 1 March 2018, and reporting starts with the year 2019. The proposed revision aims to facilitate the simultaneous application of the two systems, while preserving the objectives of the current EU legislation.

In the European Parliament, the ENVI committee has appointed Jutta Paulus (Greens/EFA, Germany) as rapporteur for the file. The Environment Council discussed the proposal in June 2019.

Versions

• October 2019:  ‘Monitoring, reporting and verification of CO2 emissions from maritime transport‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2015/757 in order to take appropriate account of the global data collection system for ship fuel oil consumption data Committee responsible: Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) COM(2019) 38 final, 4.2.2019. Rapporteur: Jutta Paulus (Greens/EFA, Germany) 2019/0017(COD) Shadow rapporteurs: Jytte Guteland (S&D, Sweden)
Catherine Chabaud (Renew Europe, France)
Joëlle Mélin (ID, France)
Mick Wallace (GUE/NGL, Ireland) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Publication of draft report

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© David / Fotolia

The British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, has presented a draft text to replace the ‘Irish backstop’, with the aim of reaching agreement with the other 27 EU leaders on the United Kingdom’s orderly withdrawal from the EU in the coming weeks. While the UK withdrawal is currently scheduled for 31 October, the UK Parliament has adopted legislation obliging Johnson to seek a delay in that date, if no deal is reached by 19 October. But with British politics in turmoil, it remains unclear if the Prime Minister will comply, or, if he does, whether the EU will agree. Economists warn that the UK’s disorderly departure from the EU is likely to have damaging consequences for supply chains in trade and production, transport, the supply of medicines and many other areas.

This note offers links to a series of most recent commentaries and reports from major international think tanks and research institutes on Brexit.

‘No deal’ Brexit and the EU budget: Beware the risk for EU unity
Institut Jacques Delors, September 2019

What does the UK’s Supreme Court ruling mean for Brexit
Carnegie Europe, September 2019

Deal or no deal? Five questions on Boris Johnson’s Brexit talks
Centre for European Reform, September 2019

Even a Commons majority for an EU withdrawal agreement doesn’t rule out a no-deal Brexit
Institute for Government, September 2019

A parliamentary majority without a policy and a government policy without a majority
The UK in a Changing Europe, September 2019

Trick or treat? French and German views on ‘Brextension’
European Council on Foreign Relations, September 2019

MPs should use their extra time wisely and scrutinise the government’s Brexit plans
Institute for Government, September 2019

Supreme Court case: Not the best way to go about things
The UK in a Changing Europe, September 2019

Brexit and ‘peak populism’ in Europe
German Marshall Fund, September 2019

Just a little Brexit? Alternative (customs) arrangements’ and the Withdrawal Agreemen
Centre for European Policy Studies, September 2019

Boris Johnson auf Kurs No-Deal Brexit
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, September 2019

Auto makers prepare to shut down again fearing no deal Brexit disruption
The UK in a Changing Europe, September 2019

The impact on Europe of ‘make-believe’ Britain
Friends of Europe, September 2019

Brexit beyond Britain
German Marshall Fund, September 2019

Bewitched by Brexit: Referendums and modern democracy
European Council on Foreign Relations, September 2019

How Brexiteers are destabilising Ireland’s fragile peace
Carnegie Europe, September 2019

Brexit and the UK’s political implosion
Scottish Centre for European Relations, September 2019

The biggest obstacle to a workable backstop alternative lies not in the EU, but the UK
The UK in a Changing Europe, September 2019

Weighing up alternative arrangements to the backstop
The UK in a Changing Europe, September 2019

Brexit: How was it for you?
European Policy Centre, September 2019

EU leaders signal desire for Brexit deal despite limited progress
Open Europe, September 2019

How Transatlantic foreign policy cooperation could evolve after Brexit
Carnegie Europe, September 2019

How would negotiations after a no-deal Brexit play out?
Centre for European Reform, September 2019

How would a second referendum on Brexit happen?
Institute for Government, September 2019

A no-deal Brexit is not inevitable
Centre for European Reform, August 2019

What would a no-deal Brexit look like?
Council on Foreign Relations, August 2019

Boris Johnson enters democracy’s twilight zone
Peterson Institute for International Economics, August 2019

Brexit banking exodus creates a dilemma for Dublin
Bruegel, July 2019

Preparing Brexit: No deal
Institute for Government, July 2019

Where Brexit goes, the law shall follow
Bruegel, July 2019

Deficiencies and omissions in the Brexit Agreement
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, July 2019

Making global Britain work
Policy Exchange, July 2019

A power for the future? Global Britain and the future character of conflict
Chatham House, July 2019

What Brexit means
Council on Foreign Relations, July 2019

Read this briefing on ‘Brexit: make it or break it?‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Christiaan Van Lierop,

Drawing over 6 000 participants to Brussels for four days of discussion and discovery from 7 to 10 October 2019, the European Week of Regions and Cities is the world’s largest annual gathering of local and regional representatives. Already a firm fixture on the calendar of Europe’s regional movers and shakers, this year’s event looks set to be another showstopper, with well over 200 sessions planned as part of the official programme. Building on the success of last year’s move to downtown Brussels, the EWRC will once again be held at the Square conference centre – and the EPRS is thrilled to be taking part again this year.

Taking place under the headline banner of Regions and Cities: Pillars of the EU’s future, the 2019 EWRC provides a unique platform for EU regions and cities to share their ideas on how best to translate the Commission’s cohesion proposals into concrete projects. With discussions at this year’s event also covering topics such as a Europe closer to citizens, a greener Europe and a smarter Europe, among others, participants will certainly have plenty to talk about.

As in past years, the EPRS has also published a Topical Digest to tie in with the event. Prepared exclusively for the 2019 EWRC, the publication features a selection of briefings and studies published by the European Parliament on many of the key topics up for discussion at the EWRC, such as regional inequalities in the EU, the Urban Agenda or financial instruments in cohesion policy among many others. Our experts will also be present at a special information stand during the whole week to provide more information about EPRS research activities, and to distribute some of our specialist publications on regional policy and beyond.

But there’s much more to our participation than just swapping business cards with visitors. For the fifth year running, EPRS will also be organising a workshop on research as part of the European Week of Regions and Cities’ Master Class on EU cohesion policy for students and early career researchers. To help put participants in the picture, we will be looking at how EPRS supports the work of the European Parliament during the policy making process, and consider how closer links may be established between researchers in the academic world and policy-makers in the EU institutions. As in previous years, we will be encouraging participants to get actively involved in the discussions, which will also examine how to enhance the communication of cohesion policy and consider future trends and topics for cohesion policy research. Above all, we want to hear what they have to say – and this is no empty promise on our part. After the event, we will commit to publishing participants’ findings on our website, staying true to the words of our EPRS motto, ‘Empowering through knowledge’.

Written by Naja Bentzen and Beatrix Immenkamp,

© artjazz / Fotolia

For the past 40 years, Members of the European Parliament have been working at boosting Parliament’s role in EU foreign policy. These efforts have continued to be stepped up since the launch of the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) in 1993. Over recent decades, the European Parliament has significantly raised its profile as a credible moral force with strong focus on strengthening human rights, supporting democracy and enhancing the rule of law worldwide.

Perhaps less visible than the European Parliament’s Sakharov Prize for freedom of thought, the European Parliament’s democracy support activities are part of its ‘soft-power’ approach to international relations. Moreover, Parliament can convey messages through channels that are different from, and complementary to, those employed by the EU’s traditional diplomatic players; for example, through its parliamentary networks.

Parliament also enjoys Treaty-based information and consultation rights, which allow its Members to shape the EU’s external policies. In addition, the European Parliament has become a public forum for debating with representatives of partner countries and international organisations, as well as influential non-state actors. MEPs pro-actively engage in inter-parliamentary delegations and missions to third countries as well as joint parliamentary assemblies. Moreover, parties in different countries often share strong links via their political families.

Read the complete briefing on ‘The European Parliament’s evolving soft power – From back-door diplomacy to agenda-setting: Democracy support and mediation‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Gianluca Quaglio,

Introduction

© Kolonko / Shutterstock

The phenomenal growth in collaboration between scientists and institutions located in different countries began 30 years ago, when the bipolar world, in which most internationally active scientists belonged either to the Soviet block or to Western countries, collapsed. Today, international collaboration in research is the core of contemporary higher-education and science systems. While in 1970, only 2 % of articles indexed in Web of Science were internationally co-authored papers, in 1980 the share was 5 %, in 1990, it rose to 9 %, reaching 16 % in 2000, until in 2013, almost every fourth publication (23 %) was written by authors from more than one country.

STOA study on ‘Internationalisation of European Union research organisations’

A recently published STOA study on ‘Internationalisation of EU research organisations‘ examines the changing nature of academic knowledge production in the EU-28 Member States, and its development towards radically increasing internationalisation. The report combines theory on international research collaboration (IRC) with the collection and analysis of the most up-to-date empirical data. A number of policy options for the improvement of IRC at the European level are also presented.

The number of internationally co-authored papers is on the rise both across EU-28 countries and across the world more generally, with different dynamics of internationalisation in different countries and European regions, especially in EU-15 countries (that joined the EU before 2004) compared to EU-13 countries (that joined the EU after 2004). At the same time, there are significant differences across fields of science. While the world seems to collaborate in research mostly on a nation-by-nation basis, Europe is exceptional in its long-term, large-scale, intra-regional research collaborations, including collaborations funded by consecutive EU framework programmes for research.

Collaboration enables the sharing of knowledge, skills and techniques, exchange of different views, cross-fertilisation of ideas and intellectual companionship, helping to expand networks of contacts and enhance the visibility of research work. IRC tends to increase research productivity: in general, multiple-institution papers are more highly cited than single-institution papers, and internationally co-authored papers are more highly cited than those with domestic co-authors. The STOA study shows that researchers prefer to collaborate in fields where they can share basic ideas and fundamental knowledge, rather than in those where they may develop commercially viable results.

Types of research and international research collaborations

The STOA study explores different types of research collaboration: (i) IRC, in the sense of collaboration between academics located in different countries; (ii) national research collaboration, with multi-authored research outputs, where all authors are affiliated with more than one institution within a single country; (iii) institutional research collaboration, linked to a multi-authored research output, where all authors are affiliated with the same institution; and, finally, (iv) the ‘solo research’ mode in science, i.e. a single-authored research output, where the sole author is affiliated with an institution in a given country.

Not all sciences are equally driven by the internationalisation demand. The STOA study recognised four types of international research collaboration: (i) data-driven collaboration (as in genetics, demography, epidemiology); (ii) resource-driven collaboration (as in seismology, zoology); (iii) equipment-driven collaboration (as in astronomy, high-energy physics), and (iv) theory-driven collaboration (as in mathematics, economics or philosophy).

Barriers to research internationalisation

The personal decision to engage in international collaboration in research needs to be viewed in the context of a trade-off between collaboration investments and expected collaboration effects. Maintaining too many or too demanding relations with international collaborators in research can lead to high costs, resulting from, among other things, information overload, unclear responsibility, and communication constraints. The STOA study debates types of barriers to IRC: from macro-level barriers (geopolitics, history, language, cultural traditions, country research propensity, geographical distance), to institutional barriers (reputation, resources), and individual barriers (predilections, intellectual or financial attractiveness).

Empirical data from the STOA study

The STOA report analyses the macro-level of countries and the meso-level of flagship institutions to assess the cross-national and cross-institutional differentiation in IRC in 2007-2017. The aggregates of EU-28 results are analysed in the global context of China and the United States of America (USA), the two biggest academic knowledge producers.

Macro-level of countries

The number of articles written under international collaboration in the study period was 2 193 504 in the EU-28, 1 437 621 in the USA and 588 087 in China. In 2017, the share of internationally co-authored papers was 44 % for EU-28 (47 % for EU-15 countries and 39 % for EU-13 countries), 40 % for the USA and 22 % for China. The share of internationally co-authored publications in Europe is thus 4.6 percentage points higher than in the USA and 22.2 percentage points higher than in China. IRC has risen in every EU-28 country in the study period. In the EU-28, the largest number of articles published in international collaboration in 2017 was, by far, in the natural sciences, followed by the medical sciences, and the lowest number was in the humanities.

Meso-level of flagship research institutions

The analysis at the macro-level (countries) is accompanied in this report by an analysis at the meso-level for selected flagship research institutions. In the most general terms, collaboration trends over time are similar for EU-28 countries and for their flagship institutions; however, the internationalisation trends are more intense for flagship institutions than for countries. The percentage share of international collaboration is on average lower for flagship universities located in EU-13 countries than for those located in EU-15 countries. While no flagship universities located in EU-13 countries exceeded the level of 60 % of international collaboration, five flagship universities in EU-15 exceeded this level.

Policy options

The study identifies a number of broad policy options for supporting the internationalisation of EU research organisations. They can be briefly summarised as follows:

IRC should be at the centre of national research policies: Placing the internationalisation of research at the centre of national research policies refers to all levels of operation of higher education systems, from national to institutional, to departmental, to individual. Internationalisation-supportive research policies should promote international publication channels both in direct block funding to their institutions and in indirect, individual-level competitive research funding.

Large-scale funding should be provided for IRC: Internationalisation costs are increasing across all national systems in Europe. The rise of internationalisation-related costs needs to be noted and reflected in both budget size and its internal distribution.

Individual scientists should be at the centre of national internationalisation agendas: Today, the individual scientist matters greatly for IRC. A bottom-up approach, with maximum flexibility as to how, with whom, and on which topic to collaborate internationally in research, unreservedly combined with the hard line of research excellence as defined through top publications only, should always work better than any other set of recommendations for IRC programmes and should be strengthened.

Your opinion counts. Let us know what you think, get in touch via email stoa@europarl.europa.eu

Written by Naja Bentzen,

Members of the European Parliament form official groups – delegations – with ties to regions and organisations, as well as parliaments, in non-EU countries. Parliament has expanded its impact EU in foreign policy in recent decades, and its delegations are a key component of its diplomatic work.

Parliament delegations: parliamentary actors with a global reach

© artjazz / Fotolia

The European Parliament’s delegations are official groups of Members who build ties to countries, regions or organisations outside the European Union (EU). There are two main types of delegations: permanent (‘standing’) delegations and ad-hoc delegations, which Parliament can create on a case-by-case basis to focus on particular developments in a country or region. Standing delegations belong in three subgroups: parliamentary assemblies, interparliamentary committees, and other interparliamentary delegations (see below). Standing delegations meet regularly in Brussels and Strasbourg to assess and discuss the situation in their partner countries and on their respective ties to the EU. The delegations invite external experts to share their views: representatives from embassies or universities, or staff from the European Union’s External Action Service (EEAS), for example. The delegations also invite members of the political opposition or civil society in a given country, to give them a voice at their meetings. In addition, delegations hold meetings with parliaments from the relevant countries: ‘interparliamentary meetings’. These activities help form and further relations between Members and their counterparts in countries outside the EU.

Rules and responsibilities

According to Rule 223(5) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, the Conference of Presidents adopts the rules for the delegations on a proposal from the Conference of Delegation Chairs. The rules applying to the delegations are set out in the Conference of Presidents’ decision of 29 October 2015. The delegations maintain and develop Parliament’s international contacts and contribute to enhancing the role and visibility of the European Union in the world. The rules also specify that delegation activities shall aim at maintaining and enhancing contacts with parliaments of states that are traditionally EU partners. On the other hand, they shall contribute to promoting in third countries the fundamental values of the European Union: the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law (Article 6 of the Treaty on the EU). Parliament’s international contacts foster, wherever possible and appropriate, the parliamentary dimension of international relations.

The standing delegations: composition and work

The European Parliament currently – at the beginning of the ninth legislature (2019-2024) – has 44 standing delegations; the same number as in the previous legislature. Following the 2019 election, Parliament adopted a decision on the numerical strength of its interparliamentary delegations. It lists the delegations operating during this term, and the number of Members each one includes. The distribution and size of delegations may differ from one term to the next. For example, a single delegation covered Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo in the seventh legislative term (2009-2014). Since 2014, four separate delegations have dealt with relations with these countries.

The number of Members in a given delegation corresponds to the number of parliamentarians from the respective partner country/countries. The work of the delegations also varies according to the partner. For example, the Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific (ACP) delegation is established under the Cotonou Agreement. In the ACP delegation, two plenary sessions with the entire joint assembly are complemented with regional meetings. In some delegations, the work is mainly based on invitation, where some countries are prioritised for visits. The voice of the delegations has major potential to amplify messages.

See also EPRS Briefings on ‘Connecting parliamentary and executive diplomacy at EU and Member State level’ and ‘The European Parliament’s evolving soft power’, September 2019.

What are the different types of standing delegations?

Parliamentary assemblies are regular, formal meetings of elected representatives from several parliaments. Currently, 5 of Parliament’s 44 delegations participate in parliamentary assemblies, namely the Delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly (DNAT), the Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, the Delegation to the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly, the Delegation to the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly, and the Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Union for the Mediterranean. In most cases, Parliament’s delegation is the largest single delegation at the assembly. The number of Members constitutes approximately half the total number of delegates. One exception is the DNAT, where the delegation size is limited to ten Members.

Interparliamentary committees are mostly bilateral. European Parliament delegations meet their counterparts from a country/countries in formal meetings, held on a regular basis. Interparliamentary committees differ according to the type of bilateral agreement establishing them, between the EU and the respective country. These include Parliamentary Association Committees, Parliamentary Cooperation Committees, Joint Parliamentary Committees or Stabilisation and Association Parliamentary Committees. Parliament currently has 15 delegations participating in 23 parliamentary committees.

Other interparliamentary delegations form the largest group of delegations (25 out of the total number of 44 delegations), which work with relations with individual countries or a group of countries. The ‘interparliamentary meetings’ – in which the delegations meet with their counterparts – are not held on a regular basis, and do not have their own rules, although they follow the general provisions for delegations.

On 17 July 2019, Members voted on the composition of interparliamentary delegations. Following the approval of the nature and numerical strength of interparliamentary delegations, the political groups and non-attached Members appoint delegation members. The composition of these delegations must ensure that EU Member States, political views and genders are represented fairly. The constituent meetings of the delegations, on 26 September 2019, were held to elect chairs and vice-chairs. The interparliamentary delegations include:

Europe, Western Balkans and Turkey: EU-North Macedonia Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) (13 members); EU-Turkey JPC (25); Delegation for Northern cooperation and for relations with Switzerland and Norway and to the EU-Iceland JPC and the European Economic Area JPC (17); Delegation to the EU-Serbia Stabilisation and Association Parliamentary Committee (15); Delegation to the EU-Albania Stabilisation and Association Parliamentary Committee (PAC, 14); Delegation to the EU-Montenegro Stabilisation and Association Parliamentary Committee (14); Delegation for relations with Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo (13).

Russia and the Eastern Partnership: Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (31); Delegation to the EU-Ukraine PAC (16); Delegation to the EU-Moldova PAC (14); Delegation for relations with Belarus (12); Delegation to the EU-Armenia Parliamentary Partnership Committee, the EU-Azerbaijan Parliamentary Cooperation Committee and the EU-Georgia PAC (18).

Maghreb, Mashreq, Israel and Palestine: Delegations for relations with Israel (18); Palestine (18); the Maghreb countries and the Arab Maghreb Union, including the EU-Morocco, EU-Tunisia and EU-Algeria Joint Parliamentary Committees (18); the Mashreq countries (18).

The Arab Peninsula, Iraq and Iran: Delegations for relations with: the Arab Peninsula (15); Iraq (7); Iran (11).

The Americas: Delegations for relations with: the United States (63); Canada (16); the Federative Republic of Brazil (14); Central America (15); the Andean Community (12); Mercosur (19); Delegation to the EU-Mexico JPC (14); Delegation to the EU-Chile JPC (14); Delegation to the Cariforum-EU Parliamentary Committee (15).

Asia/Pacific: Delegations for relations with: Japan (24); the People’s Republic of China (37); India (23); Afghanistan (7); South Asia (15); Southeast Asia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN, 26); the Korean Peninsula (12); Australia and New Zealand (12); Delegation to the EU-Kazakhstan, EU-Kyrgyzstan, EU-Uzbekistan and EU-Tajikistan Parliamentary Cooperation Committees, and for relations with Turkmenistan and Mongolia (19).

Africa: Delegations for relations with: South Africa (15); the Pan-African Parliament (12).

Multilateral assemblies: Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (78); Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Union for the Mediterranean (49); Delegation to the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly (75); Delegation to the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly (60); Delegation for relations with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly (10).

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Understanding European Parliament delegations‘ in m$the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© kamasigns / Fotolia

The European Central Bank will shortly see a ‘change of the guard’ at a time of stagnating economic growth and fears of recession sparked partly by global trade conflicts. Current ECB President, Mario Draghi’s eight-year term in office ends on 1 November, and he is to be replaced by Christine Lagarde, former head of the International Monetary Fund and previously Minister of Finance in France.

Some analysts say the the ECB’s recent decisions aimed at propping up faltering growth in the euro area will limit Lagarde’s room for manoeuvre as regards a possible change in policy direction. On 12 September, the ECB’s Governing Council cut interest rates deeper into negative territory and decided to extend its bond purchases, without giving any indicative end for the programme.

This note offers links to a series of some recent commentaries and reports from major international think tanks and research institutes on the ECB and related issues.

ECB’s easing package is a call for European fiscal reform
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, September 2019

The ECB’s half-baked supervision mandate or, how to get serious about shadow banking again
Fondation Européenne d’Etudes Progressistes, September 2019

Changing guard of the ECB
Institute of International and European Affairs, September 2019

The ECB’s deflation obsession
Centre for European Policy Studies, September 2019

The role of the European Central Bank
Council on Foreign Relations, August 2019

The coming regime of the ECB: Radical centrism
Ludwig Von Mises Institute, August 2019

Preparing for uncertainty
Bruegel, July 2019

Why critics of a more relaxed attitude on public debt are wrong
Peterson Institute for International Economy, July 2019

Handlungsspielraum der EZB – von Zinspolitik bis Helikoptergeld
Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, July 2019

Introducing dominant currency pricing in the ECB’s global macroeconomic model
Kiel Institute of the World Economy, July 2019

A pragmatic new European leadership team could supply tools to face the next downturn
Peterson Institute for International Economy, July 2019

ECB monetary policy in the post-Draghi era
Peterson Institute for International Economy, June 2019

The evolution of the ECB governing council’s decision-making
Bruegel, June 2019

The Eurozone 20 years from now: Utopia or dystopia?
Österreichische Gesellschaft für Europapolitik, May 2019

20 years of common European monetary policy: Reasons to celebrate
Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung,

Vom ESM zum EWF – Klare Regeln bei der Weiterentwicklung vom Krisen- zum Vorsorgemechanismus für eine stabile Euro-Zone
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, May 2019

Who’s afraid of low inflation?
Centre for European Policy Studies, April 2019

The Economic and Monetary Union: Past, present and future
Center for Economic and Social Research, March 2019

For a geopolitics of the euro
Fondation Robert Schuman, March 2019

Monetary policy in the world of cryptocurrencies
LUISS School of European Political Economy, February 2019

20 Jahre Euro: Verlierer und Gewinner
Centrum für Europäische Politik, February 2019

Greening monetary policy: An alternative to the ECB’s market-neutral approach
Bruegel, February 2019

Whose (fiscal) debt is it anyway?
Bruegel, February 2019

Can the euro rival the dollar?
Centre for European Reform, December 2018

Rebalancing the Euro Area: A proposal for future reform
Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies, December 2018

Holding the supervisor to account: The European Parliament and the European Central Bank in banking supervision
Bertelsmann Stiftung, November 2018

Comment la Banque centrale européenne a perdu son âme
Institut Thomas More, November 2018

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘End of the Draghi era at the ECB‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Over the next two weeks, the candidates for posts as European Commissioners, at the top of the European Union’s executive will face three-hour public hearings in the European Parliament. Each of the nominees, put forward by their national governments, but seeking to take up a portfolio crafted by President-elect, Ursula von der Leyen, will face questions on their suitability for a post in the Commission in general, as well as on their specific competence for the portfolio allocated to them. Prior to their hearing, each candidate has to provide a declaration of financial interests and satisfy the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) that their financial affairs present no conflict of interest.

From the very beginnings of the European Union, the Parliament has had the power to dismiss the European Commission as a bloc, by means of a motion of censure. However, in 1992, Parliament also gained a role in the appointment of a new College of Commissioners every five years. Under the Maastricht Treaty, Members of the European Parliament vote first on the candidate for Commission President, and subsequently to confirm the appointment of the Commission as a body.

The hearings are due to take place from 30 September to 8 October 2019, at the European Parliament in Brussels. Prior to the public hearings, each candidate is invited to respond to written questionnaires from the committee(s) that are to conduct the hearings.

Under the Treaties, Parliament may reject the nomination of the new College as a body, but cannot reject individual Commissioners-designate. However, based on their performance in the hearings, Parliament may exercise its influence on the selection of individual candidates or the allocation of portfolios, as it has done in the past.

Each briefing in this set provides an overview of one of the candidates whose hearings are expected to take place as scheduled, and of the key issues and recent developments in the portfolios of the nominated Commission.

Vice-Presidents

Frans Timmermans – European Green Deal

Margrethe Vestager – A Europe fit for the Digital Age

Valdis Dombrovskis – An Economy that Works for People

Josep Borrell Fontelles – A Stronger Europe in the World (High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy)

Maroš Šefčovič – Interinstitutional Relations and Foresight

Věra Jourová – Values and Transparency

Dubravka Šuica – Democracy and Demography

Margaritis Schinas – Protecting our European Way of Life

Commissioners

Johannes Hahn – Budget and Administration

Phil Hogan – Trade

Mariya Gabriel – Innovation and Youth

Nicolas Schmit – Jobs

Paolo Gentiloni – Economy

Janusz Wojciechowski  – Agriculture

Elisa Ferreira – Cohesion and Reforms

Stella Kyriakides – Health

Didier Reynders – Justice

Helena Dalli – Equality

Sylvie Goulard – Internal Market

Ylva Johansson – Home Affairs

Janez Lenarčič – Crisis Management

Jutta Urpilainen – International Partnerships

Kadri Simson  – Energy

Virginijus Sinkevičius – Environment and Oceans

Overview of the parliamentary hearings

Read also

Overview of the parliamentary hearings, EPRS Infographic, September 2019

Parliamentary hearings of the Commissioners-designate: A decisive step in the investiture process [Policy podcast], EPRS Briefing, September 2019

Candidates for the new European Commission, European Parliament website, September 2019

© European Union 2019 – Source : EP / DAINA LE LARDIC

The European Parliament regularly receives enquiries from citizens about its role in the approval process of a new European Commission.

Under the Treaty on European Union, the European Parliament intervenes twice in the approval process of a new European Commission.

In a first phase, the European Parliament elects the President of the new Commission, based on a proposal by EU leaders in the European Council.

On 16 July 2019, the European Parliament elected, with 383 votes in favour, Ursula von der Leyen as President of the next European Commission. Individual governments of EU countries subsequently put forward candidate members of the European Commission. On 10 September 2019, President-elect von der Leyen presented her team, along with the proposed allocation of portfolios.

In a second phase, the European Parliament approves or rejects the new European Commission as a whole. Although it does not vote on individual Commissioners-designate, the threat to vote down the designated Commission has proven a powerful means to influence the composition of the European Commission.

To evaluate individual Commissioners-designate, the European Parliament organises hearings before the relevant parliamentary committees. Apart from initial hearings before the Legal Affairs Committee to examine any potential or actual conflict of interests of the Commissioners-designate, which are held in camera, these are held in public and are broadcast live. Hearings aim to evaluate Commissioners-designate on the basis of their general competence, European commitment and personal independence.

Hearings, which generally last three hours, start with an opening speech by the candidate, followed by up to 25 questions from Members of the European Parliament. The commissioner-designate can make a brief closing statement.

The public hearings on the commissioners-designate of the von der Leyen Commission will take place between 30 September and 8 October 2019.

Immediately after each hearing, the chair and leaders of political groups in the parliamentary committee responsible for the hearing meet in camera to evaluate the Commissioner-designate. If they are unable to reach a consensus, the chair will convene a committee meeting and, as a last resort, call a vote by secret ballot. The committee’s evaluation statement is made public within 24 hours of the hearing.

The European Parliament is expected to vote on the new Commission as a whole on 23 October 2019. After approval by the European Parliament, EU leaders in the European Council can formally appoint the new Commission. The term of the new European Commission starts on 1 November 2019.

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

Further information

• How Parliament votes the European Commission into office (infographic), European Parliament.
• Schedule: commissioner candidate hearings in Parliament, European Parliament.
• Parliamentary hearings of the Commissioners-designate: A decisive step in the investiture process, European Parliamentary Research Service, 2019.
• The von der Leyen Commission: for a Union that strives for more, Press release, European Commission, 10 September 2019.

Written by Marketa Pape,

© biker3 / Fotolia

The maritime industry lacks qualified personnel. Traditionally male-dominated, women today make up about 2 % of the global maritime workforce. Onshore professions taken up by women include work in ship inspection, port services, logistics, research, legal and accounting services, ship classification and marine insurance. In comparison, few women are to be found among seafarers and most of these work in support services on ferries and cruise ships.

Sea-going jobs are very demanding, not least due to long hours and irregular rest periods. Once trained, women choosing to work at sea need to overcome difficulties linked to getting hired, gender stereotypes and isolation, but often also face sexual harassment, violence, discrimination and unequal employment opportunities. Nevertheless, sea-going experience is highly valued in the sector and opens further career opportunities.

Efforts led by two specialised United Nations agencies have opened the way for women into the maritime world: the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) has long encouraged and supported women to train for both shore-based and sea-going jobs. For its part, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) set the minimum standards for seafarers’ employment conditions, men and women alike, and for eliminating violence and harassment from the world of work. To affirm the importance of women to the maritime sector and of gender equality, IMO chose ‘Empowering Women in the Maritime Community‘ as the theme for the 2019 World Maritime Day.

Promoting gender equality in its policies, the EU began to pay attention to links between gender and transport only recently. In 2012, it funded a project under which transport trade unions prepared a ‘gender training package‘ to make transport a better place to work for both women and men. In 2017, the European Commission launched the Women in Transport – EU platform for change. Focusing on the barriers that prevent women from taking up and retaining jobs in transport, it also helps exchange information on measures that companies can adopt to improve their gender balance.

To attract more women, transport trade unions argue, working conditions for all seafarers need to improve. The global nature of shipping makes it difficult to enforce seafarers’ rights. Working conditions on board are determined by the country of registration, whose flag the ship flies. For cost reasons, many ships owned by EU companies trade in European waters while flying a flag of a non-EU country and, as such, do not have to respect EU labour laws. To eliminate the low labour standards, EU trade unions have proposed to set up a European Maritime Space, where all shipping companies operating in EU waters would have to follow EU rules.

In general, workers’ rights can be better enforced under EU law than under international instruments. That said, seafarers had been excluded from EU several labour laws and their rights were only recently aligned with those of workers based onshore. Somewhat inconsistently, the 2019 EU rules for transparent and predictable working conditions again treat them as a special category, to whom some provisions do not apply. Nevertheless, better working conditions at sea for all maritime workers would also benefit women in the industry.

Written by Ivana Katsarova,

© cristinn / Fotolia

Some 7 000 languages are spoken globally today. However, half of the world’s population shares just six native languages, and some 90 % of all languages may be replaced by dominant ones by the end of the century.

The harmonious co-existence of 24 official languages is one of the most distinctive features of the European project. Multilingualism is not only an expression of the EU countries’ cultural identities but it also helps preserve democracy, transparency and accountability. No legislation can enter into force until it has been translated into all official languages and published in the Official Journal of the EU. Crucially, the provisions relating to the EU language regime can only be changed by a unanimous vote in the Council of the EU.

The EU is committed to promoting language learning but has limited influence over educational and language policies, as these are the responsibility of the individual EU countries. A 2012 poll suggests that a slim majority of Europeans (54 %) can hold a conversation in at least one foreign language, but worryingly, nearly half of all Europeans (46 %) cannot, and only four in 10 pupils attain the basic level of competence allowing them to have a simple conversation in a foreign language.

The European Parliament is committed to ensuring the highest possible degree of multilingualism in its work. Based on the 24 official languages that constitute the public face of the EU, the total number of linguistic combinations rises to 552, since each language can be translated into the 23 others. Currently, over 1 000 staff employed in translation and over 500 in interpretation care for the translation and interpretation needs of the 751 Members of the European Parliament. Internally, the EU institutions mostly use just three working languages: English, French and German.

The overall cost for delivering translation and interpretation services in the EU institutions is around €1 billion per year, which represents less than 1 % of the EU budget or just over €2 per citizen.

Following the success of the European Year of Languages (2001), the Council of Europe designated 26 September as the European Day of Languages.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Multilingualism: The language of the European Union‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Giulio Sabbati,

This infographic presents an overview of the schedule of hearings of the Commissioners-designate of the von der Leyen Commission. The parliamentary committees take the lead for the hearings, with each Commissioner-designate invited to a single hearing of three hours duration. All the hearings are to be held in the József Antall building, in rooms 2Q2 and 4Q2, in the period from 30 September to 8 October 2019.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Overview of the parliamentary hearings‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Vivienne Halleux and Ivana Katsarova,

© giorgos245 / Fotolia

Sport has a growing impact both on the European Union (EU) economy and on society as a whole. Over 7 million people work in sport-related jobs, and sport-related goods and services amount to nearly 3 % of total EU gross value added.

It was not until 2009, with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, that the Union received a clear mandate to build up and implement an EU-coordinated sports policy supported by a specific budget, and to develop cooperation with international bodies in the area of sport.

However, EU competence in sport is limited and only allows the EU to support, coordinate or complement sports policy measures taken by national governments. This rules out the adoption of legislation or any other legally binding measure. The EU has therefore opted to act via ‘soft’ policy tools, such as guidelines, recommendations and – most importantly – funding, to support its sport-related objectives.

Over the years, the EU has been actively involved in tackling transnational issues such as doping, match-fixing and lack of physical activity. In recent years, various health-related EU initiatives have grown increasingly popular. In 2018, the European Week of Sport attracted nearly 14 million people to over 50 000 events across Europe, with the Western Balkans and the countries from the Eastern Partnership joining the initiative in 2019. The #BeActive Night, a new feature first introduced in 2018, will continue encouraging participants to discover and try the different sports activities available in their area.

None of this would have been possible without the introduction of a specific budget for sport, in which the European Parliament played a key role. As the popularity of sport-related initiatives grows, so do the Commission’s plans and ambitions for the broader role of sport in society. The executive’s proposal for the 2021-2027 Erasmus programme confirms this ambition. Accordingly, the amount available for Erasmus would be doubled, to reach €30 billion, with €550 million dedicated to sport.

Listen to this podcast on YouTube.

Read the complete briefing on ‘EU sports policy: Going faster, aiming higher, reaching further ‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Clare Ferguson and Philippe Perchoc,

On 21 September, we celebrate ‘International Peace Day’, declared by the General Assembly of the United Nations. This is an important date for everyone, but especially for the European Union, which from its basis as a project of perpetual peace among its members, has become one of the main promoters of peace in the world.

A successful peace project

Almost 70 years after the launch of the original EU project, this ‘Pax Europeana’ has delivered a ‘European common good’ in terms of democracy and citizen participation, mobility, economic prosperity and security. Indeed, the EU’s very existence can be said to act as a guarantee of peace on the continent, through the creation of the world’s most integrated regional network of cooperation, as well as the strengthening of supranational institutions that represent European citizens, European states, and the European general interest.

The EU’s major contribution to peace was recognised when the Nobel Academy commended the EU for having ‘over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe’. The EU is the only international organisation outside the League of Nations/United Nations system to have been awarded the Nobel Prize (in 2012).

EU measures in favour of peace are driven by a positive understanding of peace: that is, as not merely an absence of conflict, but a sustainable multidimensional peace in which wellbeing and combating inequalities are also key. To reach this positive peace, the EU contributes through both internal and external policies. The EU was key in insuring a lasting peace in Northern Ireland, for example. Externally, the EU is an important global player in the field of peace and security. Two key goals of the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy are the preservation of peace globally and the strengthening of international security.

Opinion polls show that EU citizens support this EU mission for peace, and a majority would like to see even greater EU engagement in policies related to peace and security.

Figure 1. Gap between expectations and evaluation of EU action in different policy areas relevant to peace and security

Measuring and mitigating threats to peace

In 2016, to support EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy with a shared understanding of the global security situation, the European Union defined a series of common objectives and threats to be faced by the Union through the ‘EU Global Strategy‘.

The recently released Normandy Index is a contribution to the evaluation of these threats to peace. The product of a partnership between the region of Normandy and the European Parliament, it was designed and prepared by the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) and developed by the Institute for Economics and Peace. The index provides a holistic picture of the world through the prism of the pursuit of peace measured against threats explicitly defined in the Global Strategy. It shows that, the European continent ranks highly for peace, with the EU the 8th least threatened player in the world (Norway ranks in first place, Switzerland second, and Iceland third).

Figure 2. The Normandy Index, 2019

The Normandy Index provides a tool to better understand the threats that challenge global peace. It can help policy-makers to evaluate the EU’s activities in different dimensions and to identify ways to act preventively and support countries and regions that are most threatened. It is not a ranking of countries according to their peacefulness, but rather a ranking of identified threats to peace, such as climate change, cybersecurity, terrorism, economic crisis or terrorism, for example.

The EU’s answer to the threat

Brussels is one of the busiest diplomatic capital cities in the world. The EU is already one of the largest humanitarian donors, as well as a key trade partner for most countries globally. In these fields, EU action complements EU Member State activities.

On the ground, the EU has been able to strengthen the nexus between security, development and humanitarian aid through the implementation of comprehensive strategies, for example in the Horn of Africa and in the Sahel. A quarter of all European aid goes to the most fragile states.

In the larger field of peace promotion, the EU was and remains a key player in the negotiations over Iran and, more generally, on fighting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The EU also provides assistance worldwide to mitigate the effects of global warming, or on securing nuclear installations, for example.

Two examples of EU contributions to peace: the Western Balkans and Colombia

In the Western Balkans, EU policy has shifted from one of stabilisation and containment to a much more ambitious policy of ‘positive peace’-building, embodied in the EU enlargement process. To restore normality after a period of dramatic destruction of human and economic capital and to promote the re-establishment of peace in the Western Balkans, the EU has gone beyond disarmament, repairing roads, re-establishing free flows of goods and helping refugees return home. Firstly in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and then in the rest of the region, the EU has advocated a genuine and inclusive ‘positive peace’, comprising reconciliation, respect for the rule of law, free elections, equal political and social opportunities, a free press, civil society participation, economic growth – i.e. acting beyond mere declarations to actually put ideas into practice.

The EU has been present in Colombia since the late 1990s, when EU foreign policy first developed, coinciding with the internationalisation of the Colombian conflict. The EU approach to supporting peacebuilding in Colombia has been comprehensive, comprising a wide spectrum of soft (civilian) means, and favouring dialogue and cooperation for the resolution of disputes. It has involved a combination of political dialogue (at national, regional and local levels), financial aid (development cooperation and humanitarian aid), and trade relations.

From the beginning of its engagement, the EU has focused on addressing the root causes of the conflict – socioeconomic inequality; human rights violations; armed conflict and illegal activities – through reconciliation efforts (in the form of Peace Laboratories), economic territorial development (through rural integration), and multi-level political dialogue (also within the context of its trade relations). This EU support was key in reaching a peace agreement in 2016.

Promoting peace: the way forward

In 2019, European citizens elected a new European Parliament, which now proceeds to hear auditions of designated European Commissioners, including those responsible for Common Foreign and Security Policy, enlargement and neighbourhood policy. Together with the Council of the EU, the European Parliament and the European Commission will face the challenges of promoting peace globally in the next five years, against a background of  key environment and multilateralism issues.

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© Bits and Splits / Fotolia

The United Nations’ Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, will convene a special summit on climate change on 23 September, during the annual session of the UN General Assembly in New York. The meeting, entitled ‘Climate Action Summit 2019: A race we can win, a race we must win’, is meant to encourage world leaders to do more to limit emissions of greenhouse gases responsible for global warming. Guterres has said the meeting will seek to challenge states, regions, cities, companies, investors and citizens to step up action in the areas of energy transition, climate finance and carbon pricing, industry transition and nature-based solutions.

This note offers links to a series of recent commentaries and reports from major international think tanks and research institutes on climate change and ways to mitigate it. Earlier reports on trade can be found in a previous edition of ‘What Think Tanks are thinking’ published in April 2019.

Economic priorities for new EU leadership
Bruegel, 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

Advancing sustainable finance: Priorities for Europe
E3G, September 2019

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

Dousing the sovereignty wildfire
Bruegel, 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

An EU agenda for climate security
E3G, August 2019

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

The coming clash between climate and trade
Bruegel, August 2019

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

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

G7 coal scorecard – Fifth edition: Coal finance heads for the exit
E3G, August 2019

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

The EU needs a bold climate strategy
Bruegel, August 2019

Global lessons for the UK in carbon taxes
Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, July 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

The overlooked side of the ecological transition
Friends of Europe, 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

Paris-proofing the next Multiannual Financial Framework
European Policy Centre, 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
Istituto 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

Better the devil you know: The importance of measuring climate risk
Chatham House, 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

Opportunities to integrate disaster risk reduction and climate resilience into sustainable finance
E3G, 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

Pathways to 2050: Alternative scenarios for decarbonizing the U.S. economy
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, May 2019

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

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

How should the next EU Commission’s agenda on climate resilience look?
E3G, 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

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

Written by Katarzyna Sochacka and Clare Ferguson,

© European Union 2019 – Source : EP / DAINA LE LARDIC

Highlights of the September plenary session included statements and debates on the preparation for the Climate Action Summit and the Sustainable Development Goals Summit in New York, on the importance of European remembrance for the future of Europe, and on the implementation of anti-money laundering legislation. A further debate on the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU was held, Parliament’s first since the change of prime minister in the UK. Parliament also debated statements made on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the political situation in Hong Kong, Burkina Faso, Colombia and Kashmir. Debates also took place on Council and Commission statements on the fires in the Amazon, forests in the EU, and cases of breaches of human rights. Members voted to approve Christine Lagarde’s nomination as President of the European Central Bank, and voted on a series of reports on amendments to the 2019 budget.

Appointment of the President of the European Central Bank

Parliament approved Christine Lagarde’s nomination as President of the European Central Bank (ECB) by a comfortable majority, and her tenure will begin on 1 November 2019, following her formal appointment by the European Council. Parliament also approved the appointment of Yves Mersch as Vice-Chair of the ECB’s Supervisory Board. Parliament is consulted on the appointment of the President of the European Central Bank under the Treaties, while an interinstitutional agreement between the Parliament and ECB ensures it also has a say in the nomination of candidates for Chair and Vice-Chair of the Supervisory Board dealing with bank supervision.

High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy statements

Members debated statements made by Tytti Tuppurainen (President-in-Office of the Council), on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, on recent developments in the political situation in Burkina Faso, Colombia and Kashmir. Although Colombia has received a range of EU support, implementation of the peace accord has had mixed results to date. Parliament also considered the situation in Indian-administered Kashmir, following the Indian Parliament’s withdrawal of the constitutional guarantee of political autonomy in Jammu and Kashmir, where the long dispute between India and Pakistan over the region has resulted in terrorism and ongoing violence.

Amending the EU budget for 2019

Parliament voted, by a large majority, to confirm its position in favour of a series of interinstitutional agreements on draft amending budgets for the 2019 financial year. The first of these, draft amending budget No 1/2019, proposes using the surplus €1.8 billion left over from the 2018 financial year (largely resulting from higher competition fines revenue and underspending), to reduce Member States’ contributions to the 2019 EU budget. On draft amending budget No 2/2019, Parliament confirmed the agreement to reinforce the Horizon 2020 and Erasmus+ programmes with a €100 million increase in funding. Finally, Parliament also confirmed draft amending budget No 3/2019, which mobilises EU emergency solidarity funding to help Austria, Italy and Romania in their recovery efforts following flooding and extreme weather events.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Plenary round-up – Strasbourg, September 2019‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Tambiama Madiega,

© Mopic / Fotolia

The discussion around artificial intelligence (AI) technologies and their impact on society is increasingly focused on the question of whether AI should be regulated. Following the call from the European Parliament to update and complement the existing Union legal framework with guiding ethical principles, the EU has carved out a ‘human-centric’ approach to AI that is respectful of European values and principles. As part of this approach, the EU published its guidelines on ethics in AI in April 2019, and European Commission President-elect, Ursula von der Leyen, has announced that the Commission will soon put forward further legislative proposals for a coordinated European approach to the human and ethical implications of AI.

Against this background, this paper aims to shed some light on the ethical rules that are now recommended when designing, developing, deploying, implementing or using AI products and services in the EU. Moreover, it identifies some implementation challenges and presents possible further EU action ranging from soft law guidance to standardisation to legislation in the field of ethics and AI. There are calls for clarifying the EU guidelines, fostering the adoption of ethical standards and adopting legally binding instruments to, inter alia, set common rules on transparency and common requirements for fundamental rights impact assessments, and to provide an adequate legal framework for face recognition technology. Finally, the paper gives an overview of the main ethical frameworks for AI under development in countries such as the United States and China.

Read the complete briefing on ‘EU guidelines on ethics in artificial intelligence: Context and implementation‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Nikolina Šajn,

© auremar / Fotolia

Repairing broken or damaged products can save consumers money by helping them postpone making replacement purchases, while also bringing benefits to the environment through lower waste production and use of resources. The EU’s circular economy strategy considers maintenance and repair to be important ways of both keeping resources from being thrown away and of prolonging the lifespan of products.

A 2018 European Commission behavioural study on consumer engagement in the circular economy showed that 64 % of consumers always repair broken or damaged products. The top reason for not repairing products was the high price of repair, followed by the preference to get a new product and the feeling that the old product was obsolete or out of fashion. As for repairers, especially independent ones, they often complain about having no access to original spare parts, technical information, diagnostic software and training, as manufacturers sometimes limit these to their own after-sales services or to recognised repairers of a specific brand.

EU consumer legislation regulates the right of consumers to have products repaired within the legal guarantee period, but not beyond its expiry or for defects not covered by the guarantee. Efforts to ensure access to repair are also included in EU environmental and product legislation. The upcoming ecodesign requirements for TV screens, refrigerators, lighting, household washing machines and dishwashers are expected to ensure that independent repairers have access to spare parts and repair information. The European Parliament has called for extending the ecodesign requirements to non-energy related products, including the reparability of products, more systematically in ecodesign legislation, and extending the duration of legal guarantees. Similar calls have come from a range of stakeholders.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Consumers and repair of products‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Elena Lazarou with Francesca Braden,

© theevening / Fotolia

The debate on the participation and role of women in foreign affairs and international security is a timely and relevant one, and is being raised with increasing frequency at both national and international levels. In particular, there is growing attention to the imbalances in the representation of women in leadership and other key positions in the area of foreign and security policy, as well as to the growing body of evidence regarding the positive effect of including women in several key areas of foreign and security policy.

Among these issues, women’s role in peacekeeping receives particular attention, as research has repeatedly shown that gender equality contributes to peace, and that peace negotiations involving women have a better chance of being sustainable and effective. Gender-equal societies enjoy better health, stronger economic growth and higher security. The United Nations and the EU have put pronounced emphasis on the issue in the past two decades. UN Security Council Resolution 1325 established the women, peace and security (WPS) agenda in 2000. Since then, more WPS-related resolutions have been adopted, widening the scope and breadth of gendered peace and security. These resolutions have been instrumental in changing the philosophy and rhetoric focused on conflict and gender equality, thereby challenging the international community to do more. Several initiatives are also being implemented at EU level, including through the 2018 EU Strategic Approach to WPS. However, critics posit that a lot remains to be done, as women continue to be under-represented in the field of foreign and security policy across the world.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Women in foreign affairs and international security: Contours of a timely debate‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.