European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

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

Written by Silvia Kotanidis,

© iQoncept / Shutterstock.com

After the many debates and declarations of principles on the future of Europe of recent years, the time for a more structured reflection on the future of Europe’s development has arrived. The new President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen has pledged to establish a Conference on the Future of Europe, in an effort to give new impulse to European construction and bring Europe closer to citizens. At this stage, details of this initiative are still up for discussion. For Dubravka Šuica, the Commissioner who will take charge of the process, the inclusion of all citizens’ voices will be an essential characteristic of the Conference. However, how to ensure that European citizens are properly represented remains to be clarified.

Preparation of the Conference, in von der Leyen’s approach, will follow three steps: first, the elaboration of the concept, structure, timing and scope with Parliament and Council; then, design of a means to ensure that citizens participate as much as possible, including by fostering online participation for younger people; and last, making sure that appropriate follow-up is provided to the actions agreed by the Conference.

The Parliament has created a working group to contribute to the design of the Conference, in particular in respect of its structure, with a view to a vote in plenary. Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) has also launched discussions, confirming the eagerness of Parliament and its political bodies to play an active part from the beginning of this process.

The Conference on the Future of Europe should be an excellent opportunity to engage in more structured debate, with the intention to find concrete proposals to improve the way in which the EU works not only in terms of institutional dynamics, but also of its policies. Some have however cautioned that the initiative needs to be carried out with the utmost care, in particular on the follow-up to be given to its outcomes, so that it can remain a meaningful endeavour.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Preparing the Conference on the Future of Europe‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© weyo / Fotolia

Countries sharing the euro have made little to change the functioning of the single currency area since French President Emmanuel Macron called for its major overhaul in 2017. Many analysts and politicians have attributed the lack of significant reforms in this area to Germany’s – and some other countries’ – cautious approach, although also underlining that the currency area is now much stronger and more resilient than in the wake of the financial crisis of 2008. The single currency area’s most immediate challenge is to cope with the economic slow-down which is partly a consequence of global trade disputes. A smooth transition in leadership at the European Central Bank will also be very important.

This note brings together commentaries, analyses and studies by major international think tanks and research institutes on challenges facing the euro area and related issues. Earlier publications on the topic can be found in a previous edition of ‘What Think Tanks are Thinking’ published in February 2019.

A major step toward combating money laundering in Europe
Bruegel, November 2019

Scholz’s improved plan to complete the banking union
Bruegel, November 2019

The euro zone’s 2% fixation
Centre for European Policy Studies, October 2019

With or without you: Are central European countries ready for the euro?
Bruegel, October 2019

November 1: Christine Lagarde, President of the ECB with various resistances
Fondation Robert Schuman, October 2019

New beginnings: A new approach to euro zone reform
Notre Europe, September 2019

The ECBs half-baked supervision mandate or, how to get serious about shadow banking again
Foundation for European Progressive Studies, September 2019

Challenges ahead for the European Central Bank: Navigating in the dark?
Bruegel, September 2019

Local public finance in Europe: Country reports
Bertelsmann Stiftung, September 2019

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

Completing banking union
Sustainable Architecture for Finance in Europe, September 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

Should the euro zone be less intergovernmental?
Luiss School of European Political Economy, August 2019

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

Preparing for uncertainty: Memo to the president of the European Central Bank
Bruegel, August 2019

Wirtschaftliche Polarisierung in Europa
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, July 2019

Divergence and diversity in the euro area: The case of Germany, France and Italy
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, June 2019

Redefining Europe’s economic sovereignty
Bruegel, June 2019

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

20 years of common European monetary policy: Reasons to celebrate
Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, May 2019

Equilibrium real interest rates and the financial cycle: Empirical evidence for euro area member countries
Centre for European Policy Studies, May 2019

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

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

A second-class funeral: Political dynamics of the euro zone reforms
Observer Research Foundation, May 2019

Public debt and the risk premium: A dangerous doom loop
Centre for European Policy Studies, May 2019

Monetary policy and bank profitability in a low interest rate environment
Barcelona School of Economics May 2019

Ceci n’est pas un PEPP
European Capital Market Institute, May 2019

European Economic and Monetary Union: Who is afraid of treaty reforms?
Österreichische Gesellschaft für Europapolitik, April 2019

Understanding the limitations of Maastricht
Centre for European Policy Studies, April 2019

Taking stock of the Single Resolution Board: Banking Union scrutiny
Bruegel, April 2019

A missed opportunity: Five reasons why ESM reform will fail to deliver
Bertelsmann Stiftung, Jacques Delors Institute, April 2019

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

Heterogeneity within the euro area: New insights into an old story
Centre d’études prospectives et d’informations internationales, March 2019

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

Revisiting the euro’s trade cost and welfare effects
Institut für Weltwirtschaft Kiel, March 2019

The design of a sovereign debt restructuring mechanism for the euro area: Choices and trade-offs
Centre d’études prospectives et d’informations internationales, March 2019

How to redesign the fiscal regime of the euro zone: An alternative take on lessons from US and euro zone experiences
European Trade Union Institute, February 2019

Finding common ground: A pragmatic budgetary instrument for the euro area
Jacques Delors Institute, Bertelsmann Stiftung, February 2019

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

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

Read this briefing on ‘Euro area deepening and reform‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Nicole Scholz.

Every year, 1 December marks World AIDS Day, proclaimed by the United Nations (UN) in 1988 and aimed mainly at raising awareness. This year’s specific theme, ‘Communities make a difference’, draws attention to the crucial role of community health workers and communities of people living with HIV, highlighting their contribution to ending the epidemic. World AIDS Day also offers an opportunity to take stock of progress, globally and in the EU.

HIV/AIDS: Background

Infection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) causes a person’s immune system to deteriorate, making them vulnerable to often life-threatening opportunistic infections. Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) is the most advanced stage of HIV infection. Although HIV/AIDS does not yet have a cure, it is treatable and preventable. HIV medicines (antiretroviral therapy) can slow progression of the virus in the body to a near halt and reduce the risk of transmission. Measures such as practising safer sex or using sterile needles help to avoid HIV infection and prevent AIDS. As an additional prevention method, HIV-negative people at a high risk of infection can use pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), which involves taking a specific combination of HIV medicines daily. PrEP effectively prevents infection and has the potential to help reverse the increase in new HIV infections. HIV has claimed more than 32 million lives since the beginning of the epidemic some 35 years ago, and continues to be a major global public health issue. Considerable advances have been made, however, and HIV infection has become a manageable chronic health condition. People living with HIV can expect to live a normal lifespan.

Facts and figures from Europe

Despite the progress made – the number of AIDS cases and AIDS-related deaths has declined steadily in Europe since the 1990s – HIV transmission remains a problem in the EU and its neighbouring countries (i.e. the World Health Organization (WHO) European Region, spanning Europe and central Asia). According to the 2018 joint report by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and the WHO Regional Office for Europe, the rates and overall numbers of people diagnosed with HIV are highest in the east of the region, lower in the west and in the EU/European Economic Area (EEA), and lowest in the centre.

Estimated new HIV infections and reported new HIV diagnoses in the EU/EEA and WHO European Region, 2008-2017, and target for 2020

The report’s data show that in 2017, 25 353 people were diagnosed with HIV, in 30 of the 31 EU/EEA countries. The rate of new HIV diagnoses was higher among men than women. Sex between men remained the predominant mode of HIV transmission, accounting for 38 % of all new diagnoses. Heterosexual contact was the second most common transmission mode among people newly diagnosed (33 %, equally divided between men and women). Transmission due to injecting drug use accounted for 4 % of HIV diagnoses. 41 % of people diagnosed in the EU/EEA were migrants. The overall EU/EEA trend in reported HIV diagnoses appeared to have declined slightly over the last decade, but contrasting trends were seen at national level: while some countries reported a decline in HIV diagnoses, rates had more than doubled in others.

United Nations-led global efforts to end AIDS

Ending the AIDS epidemic by 2030 counts among the targets under Goal 3 (target 3) of the sustainable development goals (SDGs), adopted by the UN in September 2015. UNAIDS, the joint UN programme on HIV/AIDS, is leading global efforts. Recent UNAIDS statistics show that there were an estimated 37.9 million people living with HIV in 2018. Of those, 23.3 million were accessing antiretroviral therapy, up from 7.7 million in 2010. Around 1.7 million were newly infected with HIV, compared with 2.9 million in 1997 – a 40 % decrease. In 2018, around 700 000 people died from AIDS-related illnesses worldwide, compared with 1.7 million in 2004. With increasing access to HIV prevention, diagnosis, treatment and care, AIDS-related deaths have been reduced by more than 56 % since the peak in 2004. As the WHO points out, although the coverage of services has been steadily increasing, not everyone is able to access HIV testing, treatment and care. Some key populations (men who have sex with men; people who inject drugs; prisoners; sex workers and their clients; and transgender people) are more at risk of HIV, but have less access to care (the ‘PrEP gap‘). In 2018, these population groups accounted for an estimated 54 % of new HIV infections globally (and 88 % in western and central Europe).

On World AIDS Day 2019, the WHO’s five main messages to global decision-makers are:

1. Today, four out of five people with HIV get tested and two out of three get treatment – HIV-affected communities have played a major role in achieving this success.
2. Countries should adopt community-based HIV testing, prevention, treatment and care as a core strategy.
3. Community-based HIV treatment and monitoring saves money and reduces workloads for healthcare professionals.
4. Expanding the role of communities and community-based healthcare will help countries meet global HIV and universal healthcare targets.
5. Community and civil society engagement must remain a key strategy to boost primary healthcare.

EU action on HIV/AIDS

Whereas the Member States have the main responsibility for health, the EU complements national action. EU HIV/AIDS policy focuses on prevention and on supporting people living with the disease. The 2009 Commission communication on combating HIV/AIDS identified policies to help reduce the number of new infections and to improve quality of life for those living with the disease. An action plan on HIV/AIDS in the EU and neighbouring countries, introduced in 2014 to support the implementation of the communication, ended in 2016 and has not been renewed. The Commission’s 2018 staff working document on combatting HIV/AIDS, viral hepatitis and tuberculosis (TB) in the EU and neighbouring countries gives an overview of policy initiatives to help Member States achieve SDG 3. The EU has invested significantly in HIV/AIDS research over the years, and is financing projects under Horizon 2020. One example is EHVA, a platform for the development of prophylactic and therapeutic HIV vaccines. HIV/AIDS-related projects funded under the EU health programme (2014-2020) include the joint action on integrating prevention, testing and linkage to care strategies for HIV, viral hepatitis, TB and sexually transmitted diseases in Europe (INTEGRATE). At the August 2019 G7 summit in Biarritz, the Commission pledged €550 million to The Global Fund against AIDS, TB and malaria, which new Health Commissioner Stella Kyriakides intends to translate into action. At her hearing, she committed to ensure access to innovation and medicines for people with TB, HIV/AIDS and hepatitis.

The European Parliament, in its 2017 resolution on HIV/AIDS, TB and viral hepatitis, urges the Commission and Member States to develop a comprehensive EU policy framework to address the three diseases. It advocates for the EU to play a strong role in dialogue with neighbouring countries in eastern Europe and central Asia. On HIV/AIDS, in particular, it calls on the Commission and the Member States to facilitate treatment, including for the most vulnerable groups, and to work on combating the stigma associated with HIV infection.

Download this At a glance note on ‘World Aids Day 2019’ in PDF.

Written by Marie Lecerf,

On 3 December each year, the European Commission, together with the European Disability Forum, organises a conference to mark the European Day of Persons with Disabilities, and 2019 marks the 27th anniversary of this day. The conference brings together decision-makers, people with and without disabilities, experts, the media and other stakeholders. Alongside and in support of national policies, the European Union (EU) has introduced a series of initiatives, programmes and strategies to improve the situation of disabled people over a number of decades.

Statistics – Disability in the European Union

According to the latest available   data, in 2012, there were at least 70 million people aged 15 years and over with disabilities in the European Union (EU-27), corresponding to 17.6 % of the population aged 15 years and over. This share is likely to increase with an ageing population, given that people are more prone to develop disabilities with age.

First steps – ‘Equality of opportunity for people with disabilities’

In 1996, the European Commission published a communication entitled ‘Equality of Opportunity for People with Disabilities – A New European Community Disability Strategy’. Later on, an action programme to combat discrimination (2001-2006) was adopted to stimulate the introduction of specific measures to tackle discrimination. As an additional step, in May 2001, the European Commissioner for Social Affairs called on the European Council to dedicate the year 2003 to disabled people.

Legal basis – including disability in EU charters and treaties

As the EU paid closer attention to the situation of disabled people, the question of the legal basis on which it would introduce a genuine EU disability policy became increasingly important.

The European treaties enshrine the rights of persons with disabilities since 1997.. Article 19 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU, ex-Article 13 TEC) sets out that ‘in defining and implementing its policies and activities, the Union shall aim to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation’.

Moreover, Article 26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, proclaimed in Nice in December 2000, is dedicated to the professional and social integration of persons with disabilities. Having come into effect in 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon attributed the same legal value to the Charter as to the Treaties.

International dimension – the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) was adopted on 13 December 2006. The convention is the first international legally binding instrument, which sets minimum standards for rights for people with disabilities and the first human rights convention to which the EU became a party.

By ratifying the UNCRPD in 2010, the EU associated itself with the efforts agreed at international level to guarantee the fundamental rights of disabled people. The measures taken in the Member States to guarantee compliance with the Charter must be guided by the need to enable disabled people to lead a normal life and be socially integrated on an equal level with others.

A strategy – the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020

To continue its activities, the EU published a new ‘European Disability Strategy 2010-2020′ to enable disabled people to enjoy their rights in full and to participate in society and the economy on an equal footing with others. It draws on the UNCRPD and complements the Europe 2020 Strategy and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. The action plan covers eight areas: accessibility, participation, equality, employment, education, social protection and inclusion, health and external actions.

More and more EU initiatives and actions – assisting people with disabilities

• The EU adopted a directive in November 2000 to promote equal treatment in employment and work. It recognises that the failure to provide ‘reasonable accommodation’ in the workplace could constitute discrimination;
• After nine years of debate, the EU adopted a directive on transport in 2001, which obliges bus manufacturers to provide access for people with reduced mobility;
• To encourage cities to improve accessibility, the European Commission presents annual awards to the most accessible cities;
• A European disability card scheme is being piloted in eight Member States (Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Italy, Malta, Slovenia and Romania), and should enable persons with disabilities have better access to culture, sports and leisure;
• The provisions of the Erasmus+ programme (2014-2020) promote disabled students’ mobility;
• Disabled people also benefit from the Directive on cross-border healthcare;
• The revision of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive encourages media service providers to ensure that their services gradually become accessible to people with a visual or hearing disability. The Directive on web accessibility, which seeks to make the websites of public sector bodies accessible to everybody, and the new Directive on the accessibility of goods and services are also key aspects in the promotion of accessibility for disabled people.

An advocate – the Disability Intergroup

The Disability Intergroup of the European Parliament is an informal grouping of Members of the European Parliament who are interested in promoting disability policy. Established in 1980, it is one of the oldest and largest intergroups in the European Parliament.

The Intergroup has been a key player in advocating for and advancing the rights of persons with disabilities in the EU. This new legislature provides an opportunity for the Intergroup to maintain its instrumental position on the adoption of legislation favourable to persons with disabilities.

Further information

Information on disability is available in various European Parliament Think Tank publications. Further details concerning people with disabilities are available on the webpage of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and on the What Europe does for me website.

Written by Ivana Katsarova,

© Ico Maker / Fotolia

Between 1985 and 2019, 60 cities have held the title of European Capital of Culture – most recently Matera in Italy and Plovdiv in Bulgaria in 2019. Initiated in 1983, by Greece’s then Minister of Culture, Melina Mercouri, the concept took shape two years later as an inter-governmental initiative under the name of the ‘European City of Culture’. The success of the event was such that in 1999, the Council of the EU transformed it into a Community action, and created a more transparent rotational system for the designation of the titleholder.

The selection procedure – last modified in 2014 – places particular focus on the monitoring of proposals, the enhanced European dimension of projects, improved competition between candidate cities, and the redefinition of the selection panel role.

As more and more cities enter the European Capitals of Culture race, substantial sums of money are being spent, including on the bidding process. While in the early years of the programme (1985‑1994) the average operating budget was around €25 million per city, this amount has more than doubled to reach some €60 million per city for the period 2007-2017.

With rising budgets, there is also increased scrutiny of cities, national governments and the EU, as to the wider benefits in terms of the cultural development, social cohesion and city image that most bids promise. This, in turn, has led to more frequent and sophisticated monitoring and evaluation of the whole process, both by the European Commission and by the host cities themselves.

The symbolic celebration of European cultural identities is however closely tied to the economic success of the operation. According to experts, over time a number of conflicts and tensions have become apparent due to the multiple and sometimes contradictory objectives of the event, e.g. economic and cultural, to name just two. Additional criticism includes failure to enable local ownership, difficulty in overcoming social divides and exhaustion of local resources. Notwithstanding that, ex-post evaluations of the event show that in general it boosts economic growth and tourism, helps build a sense of community and contributes to urban regeneration.

Read the complete briefing on ‘European Capitals of Culture: In search of the perfect cultural event‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Clare Ferguson and Katarzyna Sochaka,

© European Union 2019 – Source : EP/FMA -CCR

The November II plenary session highlights included the vote on the new European Commission, agreement on the 2020 budget, and Parliament’s declaration of a climate emergency. Parliament adopted positions on preparation for COP25, and on the Istanbul Convention, and also debated statements by the Vice-President of the European Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR/VP) on Eastern Neighbourhood developments, on the situation in Israel and Palestine, and on the situation in the Middle East, including the crises in Iran, Iraq and Lebanon. Debates took place, inter alia, on Commission and Council statements on: the 30th anniversary of the Velvet Revolution; on the EU response to the impact of extreme weather events; on discrimination and hate speech against LGBTI people; on the World Trade Organization Appellate Body; as well as on the protection of forest and environmental defenders in the EU. The 2019 Lux Prize, which tells the story of a young woman’s feminist struggle in conservative North Macedonian society, was awarded to God Exists, Her Name Is Petrunija, directed by Teona Strugar Mitevska.

Election of the European Commission

Following European Commission President-elect Ursula von der Leyen’s presentation of the full College of Commissioners and their programme, the confirmatory vote on the appointment of the new Commission to replace the outgoing Juncker Commission took place. Members approved the von der Leyen Commission by a large majority (461 votes in favour, 157 against and 89 abstentions). The new Commissioners will officially take office on 1 December, ready to begin work on their new portfolios under the President’s agenda for a ‘Union that strives for more’, including a ‘Green Deal’ and a revitalised economy.

2020 budgetary procedure

Members approved the EU budget for 2020 by a large majority. As sought by Parliament, the approved conciliation agreement reverses most of the Council’s cuts to the Commission’s draft budget, and increases funding for some of Parliament’s priority areas, leading to an overall increase of €400 million compared to the draft budget. With both Parliament and the Council having approved the joint text before 3 December, Parliament’s President was able to sign the 2020 budget into law. This, the final budget of the 2014-2020 period, concludes the budgetary cycle and aims to prepare the transition to the 2021-2027 framework.

United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP25)

Members held a joint debate on climate change and heard Council and Commission statements on the climate emergency, as well as their responses to oral questions on the actions undertaken to pursue the Paris Agreement’s objectives. In a symbolic vote, Members declared a climate emergency, while Parliament also voted on a resolution on its position ahead of the COP25 Climate Change Conference in Madrid this year, which seeks to reinforce the EU’s ambition for net-zero global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

EU accession to the Istanbul Convention

Members marked International Day for the elimination of violence against women with Council and Commission statements on EU action to tackle this violation of human rights. Parliament voted overwhelmingly (500 votes in favour, 91 against, 50 abstentions) in favour of a resolution calling on the Council to urgently conclude the EU’s ratification, for which Parliament’s consent is required, and to encourage the remaining seven Member States to ratify the Istanbul Convention without delay.

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

Written by Nikolina Šajn,

In recent years, the concern that some branded products might be inferior in the Member States that have joined the European Union (EU) since 2004 has become ever more apparent. This concern has come to be known as the ‘dual quality of products’. To address the issue, between 2018 and 2019, the European Commission’s Joint Research Service (JRC) compared a set of branded food products sold under the same name and in the same or similar packaging across Member States – the first time a harmonised testing methodology has been used to compare products from the whole of the European Union. The analysis sought to determine whether, despite the identical or similar packaging, there were differences in product composition and, if so, whether those differences corresponded to any geographical pattern. Results showed that about one third of the branded food products analysed had a composition that differed from one Member State to another. However, the results did not point to any geographical pattern that might explain those differences.

In 2017, the Commission had already sought to clarify the relevant legislation with a notice introducing a test that national consumer protection authorities could use to determine on a case‑by‑case basis whether the dual quality of food products was misleading. Later, in April 2018, in the framework of the ‘new deal for consumers’, its proposal for a new directive on modernisation of EU consumer protection rules sought to include the dual quality of products (not just of food products) in the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. The European Parliament has long voiced its concerns about the dual quality of products and had called for it to be added to the ‘blacklist’ of practices that should always be considered as banned. However, the text of the new directive on modernisation of consumer protection rules as adopted by the co-legislators did not include dual quality as a practice that must be considered unfair in all cases, but rather as one that must be proven to be misleading on a case-by-case basis. The European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) has criticised this, while business organisations defend the right of companies to differentiate their products in different markets.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Dual quality of products – State of play‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Rosamund Shreeves and Martina Prpic,

Consent Matters… Credits: European Commission / Eurostat

The International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women on 25 November is a time to take stock of what has been done to root out this violation of women’s and girl’s human rights. It is also a moment to identify where improvements must be made to legislation, policy and practice on the ground to ensure that all women can live free from violence and insecurity. This year, the global focus for the international day is the issue of rape and the importance of ensuring that there is clarity across society regarding the concept of consent.

The most comprehensive survey on violence against women at EU level, published by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) in 2014, shows that one in 10 women has experienced some form of sexual violence since the age of 15, and one in 20 has been raped. Yet a 2016 Eurostat survey shows that more than one in five respondents (22 %) believe that women often make up or exaggerate claims of rape and just over a quarter (27 %) think that there are situations (reflecting attitudes regarding appropriate behaviour for women), where sexual intercourse without consent is justified. Such victim-blaming attitudes are one of the factors that can deter women from reporting rape and obtaining support and justice. Research shows that prosecution rates are not increasing in line with rising reporting rates and conviction rates for rape tend to be low. As several recent court cases in Spain demonstrate, consent – and the question of how it is established – is also crucial to legal definitions and prosecutions of rape.

The benchmark established in Article 36 of the Council of Europe’s Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention) is that lack of consent should be the central element in the framing of rape as a criminal offence. As of November 2019, 21 EU Member States have ratified the Convention (AT, BE, DE, CY, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, IE, IT, LU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI) and the EU is in the process of acceding to it (within its competences). An evaluation report for the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly has found that one impact of the Convention has been to encourage states to amend rape legislation to better correspond with Article 36, but the monitoring process has also shown that several countries are encountering difficulties in aligning their legislation with this standard. Analysis conducted by Amnesty International in 2018 found that a minority of EU countries (Belgium, Cyprus, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Sweden and the UK, since joined by Greece in 2019), define rape based on ‘absence of consent’. Denmark has also announced plans to alter its legislation. Legal definitions of rape often include other elements such as use of force, threat, or coercion. Research conducted by the European Union’s Institute of Gender Equality (EIGE) in 2016 found this to be the case in a majority of EU Member States (23 countries). The explanatory report accompanying the Istanbul Convention clarifies that where legal definitions include such additional elements, rigid approaches to prosecution, such as requiring proof of physical resistance in all circumstances, do not reflect the wide range of ways in which victims can respond and risk leaving certain types of rape unpunished. It also stresses the importance of ensuring that gender stereotypes or myths about male and female sexuality do not affect interpretations of rape legislation and the prosecution of rape cases.

Along the continuum of gender-based violence, lack of consent is an important element in another hidden and previously unrecognised form of abuse, which is receiving increasing attention in the media and at international level. In October 2019, both the United Nation’s Special Rapporteur on violence against women and the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly identified the issue of violence and mistreatment of women and girls during childbirth and in reproductive healthcare as a widespread, systemic issue and human rights violation. Coerced or forced abortion and sterilisation is one extreme example, which the Istanbul Convention (Article 39) requires signatory countries to criminalise. Women in the EU also share testimonies via movements (e.g. #BreakTheSilence (#prekinimosutnju) in Croatia; ‘EnoughSilence‘ (#bastatacere) in Italy; ‘Me too during childbirth‘ (Minä myös synnuttäjänä) in Finland; and #PayeTonUtérus in France), of other medical interventions resulting in physical and emotional trauma. These include: induced labour and episiotomies, performed without explanation or consent; interventions without pain relief or anaesthesia; verbal and physical abuse; and ineffective complaints procedures. Contributors to the United Nations (UN) report highlight that particular groups of women, including women with disabilities and migrant women, may be especially vulnerable to such abuse.

Where these practices occur during pregnancy, childbirth or postpartum, they are defined as obstetric violence. Legal definitions and specific legislation against obstetric violence already exist in Argentina (2009), Venezuela (2007) and Mexico (2014). As yet, there are no specific laws in Europe. However, the issue has been recognised at political level in individual EU Member States, such as France, where a 2018 report on obstetric and gynaecological violence by the Haut Conseil à l’Egalité demonstrated the existence and scale of the problem and recommended 26 measures focused on further research, prevention and improving awareness and complaints procedures. The measures were not unanimously welcomed but have been endorsed by the national union of obstetricians. The World Health Organization (WHO) already highlighted in 2015 that disrespectful, abusive, or neglectful treatment during pregnancy, childbirth and postpartum violate women’s rights, deter women from seeking and using maternal health care services and have implications for their health and well-being. The WHO’s recommendations were endorsed by the UN and the Council of Europe. They include calls on governments to support research into respectful and disrespectful care practices, introduce programmes to improve the quality of maternal health care, develop systems of accountability and meaningful support for professionals and involve all stakeholders including women in efforts to improve quality of care and eliminate disrespectful and abusive practices. Civil society organisations in the EU contributed to the UN report and issued their own call to action in 2018.

European Parliament positions

During the previous legislative term, the European Parliament drew attention to the rise in online violence against women, including threats of rape. At a hearing on violence against women on 18 November, its’ Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (FEMM) announced that it will be working on reports on cyberviolence and sexual and reproductive health and rights in the coming months. In 2018, Parliament condemned forced sterilisation of women with disabilities.

Related EPRS publications:

Violence against women in the EU: State of Play, EPRS, European Parliament, November 2019.

The Istanbul Convention: A tool to tackle violence against women and girls, EPRS, European Parliament, November 2019.

Monitoring the implementation of the Istanbul Convention, EPRS, European Parliament, November 2019 (forthcoming).

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© DesignRage / Shutterstock

The European Union helps its Member States to secure their external borders, whilst ensuring an area of free movement without internal borders. Frontex, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, inter alia, coordinates and organises joint operations with Member States, provides surveillance and risk analysis, and supports cooperation between law enforcement authorities. The EU also helps Member States to fight crimes such as human trafficking, child abuse and smuggling of illegal goods. The issue of borders is closely linked to EU migration policy, which is being debated with a view to its reform, following the 2015 migration crisis.

This note offers links to commentaries and studies by major international think tanks on the issue of borders and some related reports on migration. More papers specifically on migration can be found in earlier items from the same series, published in October and December 2018.

Is post-1989 Europe building walls?
Carnegie Europe, November 2019

The influence of EU migration policy on regional free movement in the IGAD and ECOWAS regions
Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik, November 2019

New beginnings: A fresh start in EU asylum policy
Notre Europe, September 2019

El despliegue fronterizo en el contexto de la Union Europea bajo el actual ethos securitario
Barcelona Centre for International Affairs, September 2019

Regional cross-border cooperation in the Danube region: A promising approach within the enlargement policy of the EU?
Institute for Foreign Affairs and Trade, September 2019

New beginnings: A fresh start in EU asylum policy
Notre Europe, September 2019

Westbalkan als Migrationsroute: Europäische Strategien und lokale Lösungen 2015-2019
Österreichische Institut für Internationale Politik, September 2019

Border games: Has Spain found an answer to the populist challenge on migration?
European Council on Foreign Relations, September 2019

A new budget for the EU
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik,, August 2019

Military mobility and the EU-NATO conundrum
Clingendael, July 2019

The EU’s security Union: A bill of health
Centre for European Reform, June 2019

EU migration policy towards Libya: A policy of conflicting interests
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, June 2019

Can regular migration replace irregular migration across the Mediterranean?
Centre for European Policy Studies, June 2019

Irregular migration and smuggling of migrants along the Balkan route: 2011-2017
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, June 2019

Healthy boundaries: Remedies for Europe’s cross-border disorder
European Union Institute for Security Studies, May 2019

Governance of the global refugee regime
Centre for International Governance Innovation, May 2019

Untying the Gordian knot of the common European asylum system: Dublin IV reform
EUROPEUM, May 2019

Infrastructure management contracts: Improving energy asset management in displacement settings
Chatham House, April 2019

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

Reducing irregular migration flows through EU external action
Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies, March 2019

Beyond operation Sophia: what role for the military in migration policy?
Dahrendorf Forum, LSE Ideas, March 2019

Money wise: Improving how EU funds support migration and integration policy objectives
Migration Policy Institute, March 2019

Migration and the next EU long-term budget: key choices for external action
European Centre for Development Policy Management, March 2019

Migration: Solid nations and liquid transnationalism? The EU’s struggle to find a shared course on African migration 1999-2019
Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik, February 2019

Pushing the boundaries: how to create more effective migration cooperation across the Mediterranean
European Council on Foreign Relations, January 2019

System upgrade: Improving cross-border access to electronic evidence
Global Public Policy Institute, January 2019

The refugee crisis and the EU’s externalisation of integrated border management to Libya and Turkey
College of Europe, December 2018

Beyond borderlands: Ensuring the sovereignty of all nations of Eastern Europe
Atlantic Council, November 2018

For a European policy on asylum, migration and mobility
Notre Europe, November 2018

Competing priorities at the EU’s external border
European Policy Centre, November 2018

Kosovo and Serbia are talking about redrawing their borders: It’s a terrible idea.
Carnegie Europe, September 2018

EU Grenzpolitiken: der humanitäre und geopolitische Preis von Externalisierungsstrategien im Grenzschutz
Österreichische Institut für Internationale Politik

Cross-border access to electronic data through judicial cooperation in criminal matters
Centre for European Policy Studies, October 2018

Complaint mechanisms in border management and expulsion operations in Europe
Centre for European Policy Studies, March 2018

The Global Compact on refugees offers an opportunity to revive responsibility sharing
Chatham House, March 2018

The European Border and Coast Guard: Addressing migration and asylum challenges in the Mediterranean?
Centre for European Policy Studies, February 2017

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

Written by Christian Kurrer,

© Shutterstock

The use of hydrogen as a fuel for transport might hold the key for decarbonising our overall energy system, by complementing the generation of electricity from fluctuating renewable energy sources such as wind and solar.

Twenty-seven years after the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, and possibly around a decade before the earth’s climate reaches a tipping point, our transport sector still overwhelmingly runs on fossil fuels, and in particular oil. A growing number of voices call ever more urgently for a fundamental system change.

In the last couple of years, the public debate on decarbonising our transport sector has been dominated by the prospect of battery electric cars, which represent a very promising path towards reducing some of the carbon emitted by transport. As electric cars enter mass production, prices will fall further, and batteries will become increasingly powerful. When electric cars are charged using renewable energy, they can indeed help lower the carbon footprint of the transport sector.

There are, however, a couple of disadvantages that electric cars will not be able to overcome in the near future: battery electric cars will always be much heavier than conventional cars, especially if consumers demand autonomy to a range of several hundreds of kilometres. Equally, recharging batteries will always take much longer than refuelling a car with petrol or gas.

While electric cars seem attractive for users that drive only a few kilometres a day, and who can recharge at times when electricity demand can be fully met by renewable energy sources – wind or solar, depending on the country – they are not ideal for users driving longer distances, who would need to recharge their vehicle in the middle of the day (when electricity is often in high demand and prices typically much higher). And even if battery electric cars succeeded in securing a significant part of the market for private vehicles, in other parts of the mobility sector batteries would simply not be practical. Trucks, trains on non-electrified lines, cargo ships, or aeroplanes will not be able to pack the number of batteries on board necessary to cross the continent, travel the seas, or take passengers up in the air. But what if we used hydrogen gas and fuel cells to produce the necessary electricity on board, rather than storing it in heavy battery packs?

Potential impacts and developments

Instead of storing electrical energy in batteries, large-scale electrolysers allow chemical storage of electrical energy, by using the electricity to split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen gas. Tanks on-board the vehicles can then be filled with energy-rich hydrogen gas, which can be used to generate electricity in ‘fuel cells’. The particular interest of this approach is that vehicles could store large amounts of hydrogen on-board, refuel quickly if necessary, and produce only pure water as an exhaust output.

The concept of hydrogen-powered fuel-cell cars already attracted much attention following the first oil shock in the 1970s. At that time, the objective was to find a cheaper alternative to oil, and one idea was to use cheap and abundant nuclear energy to produce all the hydrogen we need for our mobility. However, oil prices soon started to stabilise or to fall, and the promise of cheap and abundant electricity from nuclear power plants never became reality. Producing hydrogen with electricity generated by coal or gas-fired power plants is also too expensive, and does not help the climate. In consequence, the idea was relegated to the back burner for many decades.

Today, we still do not have the cheap and abundant sources of electricity that nuclear power once promised, but the electricity market is nonetheless undergoing a fundamental transformation that is attracting new interest to hydrogen technology. As we increasingly switch to fluctuating power sources such as photovoltaic (PV) or wind, the issue of matching supply and demand becomes increasingly cumbersome. As we install ever greater generating capacity to meet electricity demand, even on cloudy days with little wind, we are increasingly frequently in a situation where generating capacity exceeds demand significantly, and where the market prices for electricity fall to zero. This excess electricity could be used to produce cheap hydrogen. And if the price of electricity remains low for several hours a day on average, it will become economically feasible to produce cheap hydrogen in adequate quantities.

In this way, hydrogen generation facilities and wind or PV farms could become a symbiotic couple that boosts each other’s business case: The electricity used for producing hydrogen would help stabilise electricity prices when renewable energy is abundant. Wind farms would therefore generate higher returns on investment, which would attract additional investment in wind farms. And, as the number of wind farms increases, electricity generation will more often exceed demand, which means longer periods each day when cheap electricity is available for hydrogen production.

Anticipatory policy-making

Most of the technology for this new era of hydrogen mobility has already been available for many decades. Today, active international cooperation focuses on standardisation and safety aspects. It is already possible to buy anything from bicycles, cars, trucks to trains, ships, and even aeroplanes that are fuelled by hydrogen. While there are still very few production and distribution facilities for green hydrogen in Europe, and prices of hydrogen, vehicles and distribution systems are still relatively high, there is a growing perception that we are about to reach a tipping point, at which greater availability of hydrogen will increase the interest and uptake by consumers, and increasing uptake from consumers will further drive down prices to quickly reach market competitiveness.

In such a situation, even relatively modest political measures and financial investment can help these technologies reach the tipping point faster. Local governments are already stepping up their efforts to promote the production of hydrogen to supply early adopters. Public procurement programmes for hydrogen buses or trains can help industry increase production and drive down the costs of these vehicles. Tax incentives for purchasing fuel-cell vehicles and differentiation between tax rates for hydrogen and petrol would encourage more people to become early adopters, which will in turn drive down prices faster. The European Commission has recently identified hydrogen technologies as one of its six newest strategic and future-oriented industrial sectors in which Europe should aim for global leadership.

Battery electric vehicles will undoubtedly continue to play an important role in decarbonising the transport sector, especially for small and light-weight vehicles used for shorter distances. For heavier vehicles over longer distances, however, hydrogen-powered fuel-cell vehicles seem to be a promising answer. And beyond the transport sector, once the price of hydrogen has fallen sufficiently, hydrogen can help decarbonise other parts of the economy, too, for instance in the iron and steel or cement industries, or be used as a raw material for fertiliser production and other chemical processes.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘What if hydrogen could help decarbonise transport?‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to Science and Technology podcast ‘What if hydrogen could help decarbonise transport?’ on YouTube.

Written by Clare Ferguson,

© European Union – European Parliament

Now that Parliament has heard all candidate Commissioners and been assured of their suitability for their appointed portfolios, the November II plenary session agenda indicates that Commission President-elect Ursula von der Leyen is expected to present the full College of Commissioners and their programme on Wednesday morning. The confirmatory vote on the election of the Commission to replace the current caretaker arrangement then follows at lunchtime, after which the new Commissioners will be ready to begin work on their new portfolios under the President’s agenda for a ‘Union that strives for more’, including a new ‘Green Deal’ and a revitalised economy.

Launching such plans requires funding, of course, and on 18 November (the last day of the conciliation period), the current Finnish Presidency announced that Member States and the European Parliament had reached an agreement on the EU budget for 2020. As proposed by Parliament, the agreement reverses most of the Council’s cuts to the Commission’s draft budget, and increases funding for some of Parliament’s priority areas, leading to an overall increase of €400 million compared to the draft budget. Parliament will therefore consider the agreed joint text on Tuesday afternoon (with a possible vote scheduled on Wednesday). If both Parliament and the Council approve the joint text before 3 December, Parliament’s President can sign the definitive agreement. However, should Parliament reject the compromise, the Commission would then have to draw up a new draft. This seventh, and last, budget of 2014-2020 ends the current budgetary cycle and prepares the transition to the 2021-2027 framework.

With wildfires in the Amazon and Australia, Venice under water, and the EU Environment Agency warning that Italy and Hungary are at particular risk of flooding, the devastating effects of increasing numbers of climate change-related weather events have come to the top of the political agenda ahead of the COP25 Climate Change Conference in Madrid this year. Members will hold a joint debate on climate change on Monday evening, and hear Council and Commission statements on the climate emergency, as well as their responses to oral questions on the actions undertaken to pursue the Paris Agreement’s objectives. Parliament seeks to reinforce the EU’s ambition for net-zero global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, upgraded nationally determined contributions by 2020, and a higher 2030 emission reduction target of 55 %. Members will also hear Commission statements on the EU response to extreme meteorological events and their impact on urban areas and cultural heritage on Tuesday evening, and on the protection of forest and environmental defenders in the EU on Thursday morning.

Another subject hitting the headlines on a regular basis is that of society’s treatment of women and children. One in three women (33 %) in the EU has experienced physical and/or sexual violence since the age of 15; 75 % of female managers or professionals have experienced sexual harassment; and one in ten women have suffered sexual harassment or stalking made possible by new technologies. Members will mark the International Day for the elimination of violence against women on Monday evening, with Council and Commission statements on EU action to tackle this violation of human rights. The EU plans to accede to the Istanbul Convention, put in place by the Council of Europe, and Parliament has regularly reviewed progress towards accession, for which its consent is required. In the meantime, Parliament continues to seek to dispel any misconceptions that have prevented some EU Member States from ratifying the Convention. Members will vote on a motion for a resolution on EU accession to the Istanbul Convention and other measures to combat gender-based violence on Thursday afternoon.

Following the debate marking the 60th anniversary of the United Nations General Assembly’s Declaration and the 30th anniversary of the ensuing Convention of the Rights of the Child on 13 November, Members will also vote on a resolution (debated during the November I Brussels plenary) on Tuesday lunchtime, underlining the European Parliament’s consistently strong commitment towards children’s rights. Parliament will reiterate its pledge to protect & promote children’s rights, including ensuring support for the fight against global poverty, which particularly affects children.

The battle to protect these and other human rights continues worldwide. Thirty years since Parliament first awarded its prize for champions of freedom of thought, Ukrainian filmmaker Oleg Sentsov, laureate of the 2018 Sakharov Prize, will address the plenary in a formal sitting on Tuesday lunchtime. Sentsov was unable to receive his award in person, due to his sentencing to 20 years in prison in Russia for his opposition to the annexation of Crimea. In response to such international pressure, Russia released Sentsov in September this year. Parliament will award the 2019 prize in December.

Similarly, Parliament awards its annual LUX prize for the best film dealing with issues at the heart of European public debate, such as ending poverty, combating violence against women, and integrating vulnerable communities. Parliament will announce this year’s winner on Wednesday lunchtime.

Written by Marta Latek,

© mantinov / Shutterstock.com

Poverty affects more than a quarter of the world’s population, and that is why erasing it is a principal objective for humanity, enshrined as the first of a number of goals (SDGs) in the UN 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda. Poverty is more than just having insufficient income – it is a multidimensional phenomenon closely related to unequal access to education, health and other basic services. Increasingly concentrated in sub-Saharan Africa, extreme poverty destroys the lives of millions through malnutrition, high infant mortality rates and the violence and insecurity it fuels.

Poverty eradication is an ongoing objective of EU development policy. It has recently gained new momentum with the incorporation of the SDGs into the 2017 European consensus on development – the framework for EU action in the area of development cooperation. The EU supports, through its different instruments and programmes, key areas, such as education, healthcare, social security and good governance, relevant to poverty eradication in developing countries. The 2018 Africa-Europe Alliance for Sustainable Investment and Jobs has further reinforced the focus on those sub-Saharan countries where poverty is at its highest, through an innovative approach that goes beyond aid and seeks to forge an ‘equals alliance’. Its main pillar, the European Fund for Sustainable Development, aims, through EU grants and guarantees, to mobilise massive public and private investment necessary for the economic take-off of the continent, which would provide jobs and access to basic services for the growing African population.

Some doubt that using aid to subsidise private investment is the optimal way to tackle poverty, and insist on strict implementation of development objectives, environmental and social standards, and on highlighting human rights in all projects. Others also denounce the diversion of aid to finance migration management in countries of origin and transit of migration from Africa to Europe. A shift towards a post-growth economy is perceived by many as a radical long-term solution for global well-being and sustainability of the planet.

Read the complete briefing on ‘EU support for fighting global poverty: Implementing UN SDG 1 – ‘Ending poverty’‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast on YouTube.

 

Written by Ionel Zamfir,

© Monkey Business Images / Shutterstock

The United Nations (UN) 2030 Agenda for sustainable development includes a strong commitment by all states to respect human rights, in line with international law and other relevant international documents, in the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This covers the rights of the child as enshrined mainly in the UN Covenant on the Rights of the Child and other relevant human rights treaties. No action to implement the SDGs can be detrimental to the rights of the child.

More than a normative framework guiding the implementation of the SDGs, the rights of the child are a fundamental enabling factor for sustainable development and vice versa. Healthy, well-nourished, well-educated children, who are protected from violence and abuse, are the best guarantee of long-term sustainable development. On the other hand, the rights of the child can only be realised in an appropriate environment – peaceful, prosperous, protective of the child and fostering human development. Thus, there is a natural convergence between the SDGs and specific children’s rights.

The SDGs, through the comprehensive and regular monitoring they put in place, provide an opportunity for an assessment of the state of the most fundamental rights of the child, as enshrined in the Covenant. Most recent data actually warn that many relevant SDGs may not be achieved by 2030. While progress has been steady in certain areas, particularly on health-related issues, in others, progress has been less conclusive.

The EU prioritises children’s rights and relevant SDGs in its external action. It aims at mainstreaming human rights including children’s rights in its development assistance to connect the normative and developmental dimensions. The European Parliament has repeatedly defended the need to protect and promote children’s rights through EU external action, and has asked the Commission to propose a strategy and action plan in this sense.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Children’s rights and the UN SDGs: A priority for EU external action‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast on YouTube.

Written by Leopold Schmertzing with Pauline Boyer, Miro Folke Guzzini, Linus Olle Johanen Sioeland, Linda Kunertova, Gabriel Lecumberri, Sophie Millar, Arto Ilpo Antero Vaisanen,

The European Strategy and Policy Analysis System (ESPAS) held its latest annual conference On Monday, 14 and Tuesday, 15 October 2019 (see here for blog posts about past conferences). This was the last of the ESPAS cycle that started with the European Election in 2014 and the publication of the 2014 report ‘Global trends to 2030: can the EU meet the challenges ahead?‘.

This year’s conference can be counted as the first of a new ESPAS cycle, following the election of a new Parliament and the publication in April of a new ESPAS Report. ‘Global trends to 2030: Challenges And choices For Europe‘ was the basis for broad ranging discussions within the ESPAS community on the future of Europe and the world.

Setting the scene and opening address

In her welcome to the ESPAS conference session hosted in the EPRS Library Reading Room, Ann Mettler, Head of the EPSC and Chair of ESPAS, questioned Europe’s resilience in the face of an emerging age of impunity. Vice-President of the European Parliament, Othmar Karas (EPP, Austria), then opened the proceedings, welcoming the new commission’s proposal to institutionalise foresight. The European Parliament will be a partner in this effort; finding innovative ways to improve our common future is in the Parliament’s DNA. The EU can only shape the future through being persistent in its efforts and taking responsibility in the world. ESPAS can help by continuing to talk truth to power.

The future of equality

Member of the European Parliament, and returning STOA Panel Chair, Eva Kaili, chaired the first panel discussion of the day. In his introductory video, science fiction author Tom Hillenbrand focused on possible future inequalities caused by climate change and data injustice. Sergio Bitar emphasised the role of access to public goods and civic participation in governance in achieving a higher level of equality worldwide. Cinzia Alcidi of CEPS pointed to the need to prevent tax avoidance by multinationals that have exploited loopholes for too long. For Stijn Hoorens, increasing automation favours workers with intuitive creative skills and makes jobs with manual repetitive tasks disappear, thereby increasing inequality. Heather Grabbe of the Open Society Foundation argued that the combination of already-present social inequalities in society with new forms of highly personalised automated political targeting has given rise to the wave of populism we are seeing on a global scale.

The future of ageing

In a video introduction, Richard K. Morgan, author of the book and TV series Altered Carbon, evoked a future in which the rich would live forever, while the rest of the population would quickly become bored of life. Rainer Muenz, of the European Political Strategy Centre at the European Commission, stressed that there are three kinds of ageing: biological, as humans increase their life spans; demographic, as different age cohorts change size; and societal, as our understanding of what to do at a certain age changes. Lorna Harries of the University of Exeter highlighted that although ageing is natural, age-related diseases can be treated. With more funding into the causes of these diseases, we could live healthier for longer. For Mathew Burrows from the Atlantic Council, war-prone young populations and intergenerational inequality are the main side-effects of ageing trends internationally. Isabella Pirollo of the ESPAS Young Talent Network chaired this panel.

The future of universities

Lee C. Bollinger, President of Columbia University, started his keynote address by highlighting that the dual system of state and private universities in the USA has created a vibrant and creative atmosphere envied around the world. The main threats to the university come from the decreasing but still sizeable gap between university research interests and world affairs, from rising populist and nationalist politics, and from the general disrespect for truth and facts. In the ensuing conversation with the Parliament’s Secretary General Klaus Welle, President Bollinger discussed issues such as the need for an alliance of democracies that safeguard higher education and the challenges of the digital transformation. The session was chaired by the Director-General of EPRS, Anthony Teasdale.

Normandy Peace Index

Etienne Bassot and Elena Lazarou from EPRS and Serge Stroobants of the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) spoke about this new global peace index, developed by EPRS in collaboration with IEP. It measures each country’s position in relation to 11 key threats of peace, drawing attention to present and possible future areas of conflict. The Index is a new powerful tool for policy analysis and policy-making.

The future of power in a ‘poly-nodal’ world

In a video introduction, August Cole, author of Ghost Fleet, described how two fictional characters from his book, a silicon-valley big-wig and an eccentric space-industry billionaire, change the course of a US-Chinese conflict, set in 2040. Florence Gaub explained the concept of a poly-nodal world, in which winners and losers are determined by their ability to forge connections and rally others around a cause. She wondered whether Russia was able to build and maintain reliable connections. Simon Serfaty, formerly of CSIS, noted that the EU has enough wealth to be a power in the world – even if it is not a world power. He asked who would be at the top table in 2030, and suggested that for several years, too much time has been spent on marginal matters. Benedetta Berti of NATO’s policy planning staff underlined that strategic friendship is based on more than transactional content. Alexander Mattelaer of the Free University of Brussels argued for increased defence spending, and asked several challenging questions: should extra funding be spent within the NATO or the EU framework? What level of increase would create the possibility of EU strategic autonomy? In the chair, Maciej Popowski of EPRS noted the importance of being able to turn enemies into friends – a skill the USA seems to be neglecting.

From foresight to action

Ann Mettler led a discussion on the nature of foresight in government. She recalled the words of the new Vice-President of the European Commission for Interinstitutional Relations and Foresight, Maroš Šefčovič: ‘Foresight is not a luxury item. It’s a must’. Leon Fuerth, former National Security Advisor to US Vice President Al Gore, identified three differences between experts and politicians that have a negative impact on foresight: a lack of a common language; different missions; and conflicting values. Only a common purpose and the intervention of the public can overcome these issues. Mikko Duvfa of Sitra used three symbols for a new way to look at foresight. Entangled rubber bands stand for a holistic view of trends instead of a separated one. Campfires symbolise the need for humility and outreach. Thirdly, joint dreaming means inspiring the consumers of foresight instead of reporting to them. Oliver Gnad of the Bureau für Zeitgeschehen told the story of German government foresight. Germany’s strategic capacity improved only after changes to an anti-strategic mindset, the federal structure and misguided incentive structures. Finally, Bénédicte Rougé of the French Senate outlined the work of the Senate delegation for strategic foresight, which acts as a channel to political visibility and as a platform allowing citizens to tell their stories.

The future of ESPAS

Honorary President of ESPAS, James Elles, chairing the session, recounted how ESPAS developed into the inter-institutional system of long-term trends analysis that it is today and stated that its future looks bright. Klaus Welle noted that based on ESPAS research, Parliament had conducted a ‘back-casting’ exercise – it had looked at where it wanted to be in ten years and identified what capabilities were missing. Leo Schulte-Nordholt of the General Secretariat of the Council of the EU highlighted the value of the exchanges with academia and practitioners at the conference. ESPAS plays a vital role as a compass for the future and as a tool for cooperation. Ann Mettler voiced her appreciation at seeing ESPAS develop under her tenure. Pleased with the creation of an interinstitutional space of trust for important discussions, she looked forward to seeing others building on this success. Finally, Hervé Delphin of the EEAS stated that ESPAS is keeping decision-makers informed of foresight and its insights so that they can act on them, particularly in the foreign policy field, where short-term crisis seems to conceal long-term disasters. In closing, James Elles thanked the participants and Anne Mettler in particular, as outgoing chair.

Understanding EU environment policy: State-of-play and future challenges

Written by Vivienne Halleux and Ekaterina Karamfilova,

EPRS Director-General Anthony Teasdale introduced an EPRS Briefing Seminar on ‘Understanding EU environment policy: state-of-play and future challenges’ on Wednesday, 13 November 2019, as the second in a new series of events organised by EPRS, aiming to inform Members and their staff on EU policies and the institutions involved. The panel discussion, moderated by Sarah Blau, Head of Secretariat of the European Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Food Safety and Public Health, featured speakers from the European Environment Agency, the European Commission and EPRS.

Ronan Uhel, Head of the Natural Capital and Ecosystems Programme of the European Environment Agency, explained the links between environmental issues and the evolution of EU environmental legislation. While it all started with the aim of tackling heavy environmental pollution and maintaining environmental media (e.g. air, water) in good shape, EU legislation has now become an instrument to address the degradation of our environment. In his view, the cause of this shift is that for the last 40-50 years, we have developed societies at the expense of their connection to their natural essence.

Silvia Bartolini, Head of the Inter-Institutional Relations Unit of DG Environment of the European Commission, presented the European Green Deal to which Commission President-elect Ursula von der Leyen committed in her political guidelines. Bartolini focused on the environmental pillar of the Green Deal, as well as on the financial aspects of the expected profound future transitions in the European economy and societies. In particular, in the coming years, the Commission will build its environmental policy on three flagship initiatives: biodiversity, a new circular economy action plan and a zero-pollution ambition for Europe.

Vivienne Halleux, Policy Analyst with the Economic Policies Unit of the EPRS Members’ Research Service, outlined the EU environment policy framework and presented an overview of Parliament’s work on the main legislative files in the last term, such as those linked to the circular economy action plan. She also highlighted some of the topics on Parliament’s agenda for the current term, such as biodiversity, water and air quality.

Ekaterina Karamfilova, a Policy Analyst with the Ex-post Evaluation Unit of EPRS, informed the public about the state-of-play of implementation of EU environment policy at national level. Referring to the findings of an EPRS study on the mid-term review of the ongoing 7th Environment Action Programme, she identified biodiversity, waste management, air pollution and noise as the most problematic areas. She also highlighted a few issues for the EP to watch during the new term and stressed on the importance of Member States’ capacities to implement environmental policies.

The fact that environmental concerns are not sufficiently integrated (mainstreamed) in other policy areas (for example, agriculture, transport, industry, etc.), and that breaking down these silos is needed, emerged as a shared issue of concern for the four panellists.

The next event in the series of EPRS Briefing Seminars will be held on Wednesday, 4 December, on Understanding EU policy on international crime and terrorism. As announced by Anthony Teasdale, a briefing seminar on EU climate policy is scheduled for February 2020.

Click to view slideshow.

EPRS Annual Lecture 2019 – Clash of Cultures: Transnational governance in post-war Europe

Written by Joanna Apap with Linus Siöland,

Focusing on transnational governance in the period since the end of World War II, this year’s EPRS annual lecture 2019 was delivered by Professor Wolfram Kaiser, Professor of European Studies at the University of Portsmouth, United Kingdom, who is this year’s non-Resident Visiting EPRS Fellow.

Director General of EPRS, Anthony Teasdale, launching the event, noted that it is the most recent in a series (that began with a lecture delivered by Professor Desmond Dinan), providing an opportunity to deepen our understanding of the history of the dynamics of the European Parliament. In addition, the lecture allows EPRS Fellows to present their research.

Wolfram Kaiser’s introduction then portrayed the peculiar mix of European governance traditions and practices that have evolved since the mid-twentieth century. These are: ‘technocratic internationalism’, the notion of governance by transnational experts in the interests of all; (ii) ‘neo-corporatist or consociational cooperation’ geared towards achieving broad consensus on policy-making, reflecting the EU’s heterogeneous character and government and societal actors’ national preferences; and (iii) the vision of the EU as ‘a supranational parliamentary democracy’, which puts ‘parliamentarisation’ of the EU centre stage.

Professor Wolfram Kaiser

Kaiser began by highlighting Jean Monnet’s technocratic internationalist idea of the ‘supranational character of cooperation’. Influenced by his work in the League of Nations and his wartime experiences, Monnet appreciated considering issues in their entirety, rather than in the frame of national interest or short-term gain, preferring to depoliticise issues and work towards a common interest. These views strongly influenced the early Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), providing an early basis for expert-driven decision-making. Kaiser continued by illustrating that neo-corporatist cooperation originated in the coal and steel cartels of post-war Europe, with proponents arguing that such working patterns could avoid ‘wasteful competition’. While Monnet was critical of cartels and did not include them in the ECSC, the practice of cooperative cartels nevertheless became embedded in the European economy, only declining with the increased prominence of liberal and free-market norms in the 1970s. Finally, Kaiser explained that the constitutionalisation of European integration followed warnings by French President Charles De Gaulle, among others, against the emergence of an ‘overbearing technocratic bureaucracy’, which lacked wider legitimacy. Kaiser then explained how the drive for a European parliamentary democracy that followed was shaped in large part by the emergence of European political groups, the European People’s Party and the Socialists and Democrats in particular.

For Kaiser, the historical development of European transnational government has produced four main challenges: by focusing on its output, rather than its legitimacy, the Commission has become an ‘easy target’ for criticism; consensus-driven policy-making has led to a perception of a lack of transparency that amplifies the populist rhetoric of ‘us versus them’; a number of Member States sought to blame the EU for a lack of solutions for inherently national issues at European level; the democratic deficit has persisted, despite Federalists’ hope that a stronger European Parliament would attenuate the issue. For Kaiser, the three governance traditions on which his research has focused have created tension and undermined each other, providing an opportunity for Europopulist attack.

Opening the ensuing discussion, Dr Heather Grabbe, Director of the Open Society European Policy Institute, highlighted the importance of taking a historical perspective of the EU. Only by studying these developments, can one properly understand the practices of transnational governance. Whilst Grabbe highlighted how adaptable the EU has proven to be, she also highlighted that, in new areas of policy action such as combating climate change, it is important that the EU takes care to avoid blame for individual states’ policy failures. However, it is exactly on policies such as climate change action, that the EU can make a bigger impact than national policy, looking to benefit future generations of Europeans.

Professor Brigid Laffan, Director of the European University Institute’s Robert Schuman Centre, then argued that today’s ‘joint decision trap’ has become more of a ‘politics trap’, with domestic politics increasingly influencing the work of the EU. Parliamentarisation may have increased politicisation, but the EU machinery has not yet adapted to this new landscape. In particular, she noted the continued and even increased relevance of European party families, with the growing influence of party group allegiance demonstrated in the recent Spitzenkandidaten process. However, Laffan noted, there is no democracy without politics. The period of intense treaty change that concluded with the adoption of the Lisbon treaty resulted in a much stronger EU, and today’s intensive transgovernmentalism. Pointing to the EU’s resilience in the face of financial and migration crises, Laffan also cautions against exaggerating the risk of the EU’s demise. In conclusion, Laffan argued that Euroscepticism should not be equated with nationalism in all cases, and that nationalism is not the same as populism. A liberal form of nationalism can be both pro-European and cosmopolitan. The EU has weathered the crises of the last decade and has emerged as a much stronger organisation. Ending on a positive note, Laffan feels that the EU can indeed adapt to the challenges it faces.

A recording of the EPRS Annual Lecture 2019 can be found here.

http://europarl.europa.eu/EPRS/Annual_Lecture_2019.MP3

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© Respiro / Shutterstock.com

The European Union is a community of law, with the rule of law being a basic value since the Union’s inception. The President-elect of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, has confirmed a strong commitment to uphold the rule of law, which remains a shared responsibility for all EU institutions and all Member States. However, developments in several EU Member States – for example Czechia, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Malta – have raised concerns over how far this commitment is actualy being observed in practice, sparking a lively debate across the EU and action in the EU institutions themselves.

This note offers links to recent commentaries, studies and reports from major international think tanks on the rule of law debate.

GENERAL ISSUES

Why can’t the EU’s West and East work as one?
Carnegie Europe, November 2019

So why don’t we just call the whole rule of law thing off, then?
Verfassungsblog, October 2019

Europeans face the risk of democratic regression: What can be done?
Jacques Delors Institute, September 2019

Charting a new path for V4–France cooperation
EUROPEUM, September 2019

Luxemburg as the last resort
Verfassungsblog, September 2019

Russian information warfare in Central and Eastern Europe: Strategies, impact, and counter-measures
German Marshall Fund, June 2019

Rules enforcement in the EU: Conditionality to the rescue?
Jacques Delors Institute Berlin, May 2019

Rule of law infringement procedures: A proposal to extend the EU’s rule of law toolbox
Centre for European Policy Studies, May 2019

EU policy on strengthening resilience in Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia between the rule of law and oligarchic influence
European Policy Institutes Network, May 2019

Ten years after EULEX: Key principles for future EU flagship initiatives on the rule of law
Centre for European Policy Studies, May 2019

Rule of law in the EU beyond political divisions: Budgetary sanctions and a new programme for citizens
Stefan Batory Foundation, April 2019

Est-Ouest: Réalité et relativité d’un clivage
Notre Europe, March 2019

Systemic rivalry and balancing interests: Chinese investment meets EU law on the Belt and Road
Centre for European Policy Studies, March 2019

Can the V4’s priorities shape ‘Europe’s priorities’? The Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027
Institute for Foreign Affairs and Trade, February 2019

Safeguarding democracy in the European Union: A study on a European responsibility
Heinrich Böll Stiftung, December 2018

Was 2018 der Demokratie in der EU gebracht hat: Und worauf es jetzt ankommt
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, November 18

Nationalistic populism and its reception in Central Europe
Österreichische Gesellschaft für Europapolitik, October 2018

The Polish law on the Supreme Court in light of rulings of the Court of Justice of the EU
Stefan Batory Foundation, June 2018

Divisions in Europe expose the need for an ambitious reform of the EU
ÖGfE, June 2018

From pro-European alliance to eurosceptic protest group? The case of the Visegrad Group
Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies, May 2018

How can Europe repair breaches of the rule of law?
Notre Europe, April 2018

First victims or last guardians? The consequences of rule of law backsliding for NGOs: Case studies of Hungary and Poland
Centre for European Policy Studies, April 2018

The consensus fights back: European first principles against the rule of law crisis
Verfassungsblog, April 2018

Beneath the surface of illiberalism: The recurring temptation of ‘national democracy’ in Poland and Hungary, with lessons for Europe
Wise Europa, Heinrich Böll Stiftung, February 2017

Five steps the EU must take to protect civil society
Open Society Foundation, January 2018

Illiberal democracies in the EU: The Visegrad group and the risk of disintegration
Barcelona Centre for International Affairs, January 2018

Frontiers of democracy: Embedding democratic values in Central and Eastern Europe – Good practices and limits of transferability
Center for European Neighborhood Studies, January 2018

The Commission takes a step back in the fight for the Rule of Law
Verfassungsblog, January 2018

Infringement proceedings as a tool for the enforcement of fundamental rights in the European Union
Open Society Foundations, October 2017

Europe and its discontents: Poland’s collision course with the European Union
European Council on Foreign Relations, September 2017

Defending EU values in Poland and Hungary
Carnegie Europe, September 2017

Core European values under threat
Bertelsmann Stiftung, August 2017

The open society and its enemies: An attack against CEU, academic freedom and the rule of law
Centre for European Policy Studies, April 2017

The Commission’s decision on ‘less EU’ in safeguarding the rule of law: A play in four acts
Centre for European Policy Studies, March 2017

INDIVIDUAL COUNTRIES

The role of the Kremlin’s influence and disinformation in the Czech presidential elections
European Values, February 2018

Activities of Czech President Miloš Zeman as the Kremlin’s Trojan horse
European Values, January 2018

Andrej Babiš and the European Union: What to expect in 2018?
EUROPEUM, January 2018

Can EU funds promote the rule of law in Europe?
Centre for European Reform, November 2017

After the elections in the Czech Republic: The end of liberal democracy in Central Europe?
Heinrich Böll Stiftung, October 2017

Poles and Hungarians move the pendulum
Carnegie Europe, October 2019

Hungarian politics in 2018
Friedrich Ebert Foundation, January 2019

Shrinking spaces in Hungary and Poland
Carnegie Europe, October 2017

Viktor Orbán’s survival games
Carnegie Europe, April 2018

Hungarian politics is about to enter a new period
German Marshall Fund, April 2018

Cohesion policy and perceptions of the European Union in Hungary: A cultural political economy approach
Center for Policy Studies, December 2017

Orbán’s theatrical struggle against big, bad Berlin
Heinrich Böll Stiftung, October 2017

Political discrimination in Hungary: Case studies from the Hungarian justice system, local government, media, agriculture, education and civil sector
Policy Solutions, February 2017

Demokratie als Enttäuschung: Transformationserfahrungen in Ungarn
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, January 2017

Information warfare in Hungary
Institute for Foreign Affairs and Trade, January 2017

The Polish Senate under opposition control
Verfassungsblog, October 2019

Under siege: Why Polish courts matter for Europe
Stefan Batory Foundation, April 2019

System dyscyplinarny sędziów pod kontrolą ministra sprawiedliwości
Forum Obywatelskiego Rozwoju, February 2019

The revenge of the nation: Political passions in contemporary Poland
Notre Europe, January 2019

The Polish law on the Supreme Court in light of rulings of the Court of Justice of the EU
Stefan Batory Foundation, June 2018

Where the law ends: The collapse of the rule of law in Poland, and what to do
Stefan Batory Foundation, May 2018

The Court is dead, long live the courts? On judicial review in Poland in 2017 and “judicial space” beyond
Verfassungsblog, March 2018

Maintaining the rule of law in Poland: What next for the Article 7 proceedings?
Institute of International and European Affairs, February 2018

Report of the Stefan Batory Foundation legal expert group on the impact of the judiciary reform in Poland in 2015-2018
Stefan Batory Foundation, February 2018

Discussions on rule of law crisis in Poland
Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, January 2018

Systemic threats to the rule of law in Poland: Between action and procrastination
Fondation Robert Schuman, November 2017

Polish civil society: Adapting to new pressures
Centre for Strategic and International Studies, December 2017

Stabilization policies and structural developments: Poland and the crises of 1929 and 2008
Center for Social and Economic Research, December 2017

The West matters to Poland
Carnegie Europe, November 2017

The influence of economic migration on the Polish economy
Center for Social and Economic Research, Fondation Robert Schuman, November 2017

New Pact for Europe: National Report, Poland
European Policy Centre, Institute of Public Affairs, November 2017

Deep rot in Slovakia
Verfassungsblog, October 2019

Frustration and hope: Slovakia after Kuciak’s murder
Centre for Eastern Studies, July 2019

An investigative journalist killed in Slovakia
Centre for Eastern Studies, February 2018

New Pact for Europe: National Report, Slovakia
European Policy Centre, GLOBSEC, November 2017

Strengthening Social Democracy in the Visegrad Countries: Limits and Challenges faced by Smer‑SD
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, January 2017

Read this briefing on ‘Rule of law‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Clare Ferguson and Katarzyna Sochaka,

© European Union 2019 – Source : EP/Philippe BUISSIN

The November I plenary session highlights included statements and debates on the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and on the 30th anniversary of the adoption of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Parliament also debated statements made by the Vice-President of the European Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR/VP) on Turkish drilling activities in European Union waters in the Eastern Mediterranean, and on the situation in Bolivia and in Chile. Debates took place, inter alia, on Commission and Council statements on the international day to end impunity for crimes against journalists, on the resurgence of Ebola in East Africa, as well as on the situation of migrants in Bosnia and Herzegovina and on the hotspots in Greek islands.

30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall

Parliament marked the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall in the presence of Wolfgang Schäuble, President of the German Bundestag. The European Parliament of the time closely followed the swift reunification of the German nation, which took less than a year. The former German Democratic Republic was able to integrate into the European Economic Community through a special procedure. Parliament set up a Temporary Committee, which emphasised the opportunities of German reunification to foster greater European integration, to prevent the undermining of the single market, and to take the wider context of relations with central and eastern Europe into account, all of which remain key issues for the EU today.

Children’s rights on the 30th anniversary of the Convention of the Rights of the Child

Members also marked the 30th anniversary (on 20 November) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, debating Council and Commission statements on EU action in this field (and will vote on a resolution during the November II session). The convention was the first international treaty to recognise children as human beings with innate rights, outlining universal standards for the care, treatment, survival, development, protection and participation of all children. Since entering into force in 1990, conditions for children have improved, but child poverty in the EU remains a reality, and the Europe 2020 strategy is helping to tackle this. Nevertheless, children’s rights are a priority issue in EU external action, where pursuing the UN Sustainable Development Goals means emphasising healthy, well-nourished and protected children as the basis for a long-term sustainable society.

Situation of migrants in Bosnia

Members debated Council and Commission statements on the situation of migrants in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where around 8 000 people, originating from southern Asia and the Middle East are currently present, mainly in Bihać. Despite EU funds being available, the country has been unable to establish additional locations for temporary reception centres. Unable to cope, local authorities have restricted movement and forcibly transferred migrants to unsuitable sites, while neighbouring Croatia has allegedly pushed migrants back into Bosnia and Herzegovina, in violation of international norms on non-refoulement. Consequently, Bosnia and Herzegovina risks a serious humanitarian emergency in this winter.

Opening of trilogue negotiations

A Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee (LIBE) decision to enter into interinstitutional (trilogue) negotiations was confirmed. The LIBE committee may therefore begin negotiations on the proposal for a regulation concerning transfer of the False and Authentic Documents Online (FADO) system to Frontex.

This ‘at a glance’ note is intended to review some of the highlights of the plenary part-session, and notably to follow up on key dossiers identified by EPRS. It does not aim to be exhaustive. For more detailed information on specific files, please see other EPRS products, notably our ‘EU legislation in progress’ briefings, and the plenary minutes.

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