European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

Written by Carmen-Cristina Cîrlig,

© tanaonte / Fotolia

In November 2018, the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom (UK) endorsed, at leaders’ level, an agreement that would ensure an orderly UK withdrawal from the EU on 30 March 2019, as well as a political declaration setting out the main parameters of the future EU-UK relationship.

The withdrawal agreement is an extensive legal document aiming, among other things, to preserve the essential rights of UK nationals living in the EU-27 and EU citizens living in the UK; to ensure that all financial commitments vis-à-vis the EU undertaken while the UK was a Member State are respected; and to conclude in an orderly manner ongoing processes in various areas (e.g. circulation of goods already on the market and ongoing judicial procedures). Importantly, the agreement establishes a 21-month transition period, extendable once, to help businesses and citizens to adapt to the new circumstances, and the EU and UK to negotiate their future partnership agreements. During this time, the UK will be treated as a Member State, but without any EU decision-making and representation rights. Furthermore, one of the agreement’s three protocols, the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland contains a legally operational ‘backstop’, aiming to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland in the future. It has long been the most contested aspect of the withdrawal deal. The political declaration, by contrast, is a non-binding text, providing the basis for future EU-UK economic and security cooperation, taking into account both sides’ red lines and principles.

With just days to go to the Brexit deadline, the procedures to approve the withdrawal deal have still not been finalised, due to continuing opposition within the UK Parliament. While extending the Article 50 negotiating period now appears highly likely, all scenarios are still possible, including the UK leaving the EU without a deal at the end of March 2019.

This Briefing updates the earlier EPRS paper on The EU-UK withdrawal agreement: Progress to date and remaining difficulties, of July 2018.

Please also visit the European Parliament homepage on Brexit negotiations.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Brexit: Understanding the withdrawal agreement and political declaration‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Ralf Drachenberg and Marko Vukovic,

© kamasigns / Fotolia

On 21 and 22 March 2019, the European Council was due to focus primarily on economic, single market and climate change issues, as well as on external relations and disinformation. Due to the second negative vote in the House of Commons on the withdrawal agreement, on 12 March, Brexit is now expected to dominate the agenda of EU Heads of State or Government again. An extra meeting of the European Council (Article 50) has been added to the programme, to discuss possible next steps in the process, including possibly deciding on an extension of the negotiation period.

Regarding jobs, growth and competitiveness, the European Council is expected to discuss the future development of the single market, the capital markets union, industrial policy and European digital policy, in preparation for the next strategic agenda. In the external relations field, the focus will be on the forthcoming EU-China summit.

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

The Leaders’ Agenda identified economic issues and trade as topics for the March 2019 European Council meeting. This is more or less reflected in the annotated draft agenda, which puts emphasis on jobs, growth and competitiveness. However, the issue of economic and monetary union (EMU), which was due to be discussed in a Leaders’ Agenda session at this European Council meeting, will most likely not be addressed. Moreover, this will be only the second formal meeting of EU Heads of State or Government since April 2015 at which migration is not on the agenda.

At the start of the meeting, following the address of the President of the European Parliament, Antonio Tajani, the President of Romania, Klaus Iohannis, whose country currently holds the presidency of the Council of Ministers, will provide an overview on the progress made in implementing previous European Council conclusions. In terms of previous European Council commitments, the most relevant for this meeting are the call for an in-depth discussion on the future development of the single market, and for the provision of guidance on the overall direction and political priorities on climate change.

Policy area Previous commitment Occasion on which the commitment was made Single market Hold an in-depth discussion on the future development of the Single Market and European digital policy in preparation for the next Strategic Agenda December 2018 Disinformation Continue work on this issue and report back to the European Council December 2018 Climate change Provide guidance on the overall direction and political priorities December 2018 2. European Council meeting Strengthening the economic base of the EU

At the March 2019 meeting, the Heads of State or Government will discuss the future development of the single market in all its dimensions. Building on the Commission’s communication on the internal market in a changing world, requested by the European Council to gauge progress on single market strategies, EU leaders will prepare the ground for the next strategic agenda for the single market, the European digital policy, capital markets union and industrial policy. A year ago, in its March 2018 conclusions, the European Council called ‘for increased efforts to deliver’ on the various single market strategies, and set yet another deadline for their completion by the end of the current legislative cycle. As underlined in the above-mentioned Commission communication, with only one third of the 67 legislative proposals already adopted as of November 2018, there is a need for renewed political commitment to the project.

Industrial policy is likely to be centre stage in the debate on competitiveness. In a Manifesto for a European industrial policy fit for the 21st Century, France and Germany called for a radical overhaul of the EU’s competition policy, to allow for the creation of European industrial champions. This initiative from February 2019 was triggered by the European Commission’s decision to block the merger of rail businesses owned by Germany’s Siemens and France’s Alstom. It also highlights the need for investment in new technologies (through InvestEU, the European Innovation Council and IPCEI) and the development of artificial intelligence (AI) in Europe.

Another contribution to the debate was provided in a February letter of 17 Heads of State or Government, from predominantly smaller Member States, to the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, as an input to the European Council’s next strategic agenda. It calls for an ‘offensive industrial policy to innovate and remain globally competitive in key technologies and strategic value chains’. Although, France and Germany stand out as not being among the signatories, both the manifesto and the letter focus on the challenges of digitalisation, artificial intelligence, where the EU needs to lead by unleashing the data economy, and the importance of integrated capital markets to finance investment and innovation.

The 17 also call for proper implementation and enforcement of the Services Directive. Professional qualifications should be guaranteed and Member States should commit to improving their performance in reducing service restrictiveness. As a contribution to the debate on services, Ireland, Finland, Denmark and the Czech Republic commissioned a report, ‘Making EU trade in services work for all’, published last November, which argues for more ambitious measures to remove obstacles to the cross-border provision of services in the EU. The report calls for full implementation and enforcement of the services directive which could, on a conservative estimate, add at least two per cent to the EU’s GDP.

The European Council is also expected to endorse the Council recommendation on the economic policy of the euro area, which is part of the 2019 European Semester exercise.

Climate change

The European Council is expected to give guidance and set the EU’s overall political priorities on climate policy. Climate change has regularly been on the agenda of the European Council in recent years, with EU leaders repeatedly reaffirming the EU’s commitment to the full implementation of the Paris Agreement. In response to a request formulated by the European Council in December 2018, and based on the European Commission communication, ‘A Clean Planet for all’, as well as a Presidency background note, the Council held ‘a policy debate on the EU’s long-term strategic vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate neutral economy’. The Romanian Presidency undertook to inform the President of the European Council of the outcome of the policy debate held in the Council.

External relations EU-China summit

The European Council will discuss the preparation of the forthcoming EU-China Summit, to be held in Brussels on 9 April 2019. The summit, which takes place annually, might address a wide range of issues of mutual interest, including security, trade, climate change, research and cultural cooperation, as part of the comprehensive strategic partnership defined by the EU-China 2020 Strategic Agenda for Cooperation. Ahead of the European Council meeting of 21-22 March, on 12 March 2019, the European Commission and the High Representative published a joint communication entitled ‘EU-China – A strategic outlook’. They call for ‘full unity’ of the EU and its Member States in their relations with China, and invite EU leaders to endorse a set of ten actions. Some of the actions have a broad scope, which would require strategic reflection on the rules and functioning of the internal market. This is notably the case for rules applicable to EU industrial policy, where several Member States have recently put forward a set of proposals (see above). China was previously on the agenda of the European Council in March 2017, as part of a broader debate on trade. EU leaders then stressed that trade relations ‘should be strengthened on the basis of a shared understanding of reciprocal and mutual benefits’.

Other items Fighting disinformation

Disinformation has been a regular item on the European Council agenda over the past year. In response to a request made by the European Council in June 2018, the European Commission and the High Representative presented an ‘action plan against disinformation‘ in December 2018. EU leaders then mandated the European Commission to start implementing the action plan and to continue work on countering disinformation, in particular through ‘decisive action at both European and national levels on securing free and fair European and national elections’. The Heads of State or Government are expected to take stock of progress made in the meantime, ahead of the European elections in May 2019.

25th anniversary of the European Economic Area (EEA)

EU Heads of State or Government will also hold an exchange of views with the prime ministers of Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, to mark the 25th anniversary of the EEA.

3. European Council (Article 50) meeting

On 21 March 2019, EU-27 leaders will also meet in a European Council (Article 50) format to discuss the latest developments in the process following the United Kingdom’s notification of its withdrawal under Article 50 TEU.

On 11 March 2019, in Strasbourg, UK Prime Minister, Theresa May, and the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, agreed on an instrument relating to the draft withdrawal agreement and on a joint statement supplementing the political declaration. President Juncker stressed that the instrument ‘provides meaningful clarifications and legal guarantees on the nature of the backstop’, thereby complementing the withdrawal agreement without reopening it.

On 12 March 2019, the withdrawal agreement, including the additional instrument, was defeated by 391 votes to 242 in the House of Commons. Following this second rejection of the negotiated withdrawal agreement, on 13 March, Members of the UK Parliament also voted to rule out a no-deal scenario. On 14 March, MPs voted by 413 to 202 in favour of a requesting an extension of the Article 50 negotiation period from the EU.

Following these developments, the European Council (Article 50) is now expected to assess the next steps, and possibly decide upon the request for an extension of the Article 50 negotiation period, if so requested by the UK Prime Minister. The Treaty on European Union (TEU) stipulates that the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, can decide unanimously to extend this period. President Tusk indicated that he would ‘appeal to the EU-27 to be open to a long extension if the UK finds it necessary to rethink its Brexit strategy and build consensus around it’.

Attending the European Parliament’s plenary debate, in advance of this upcoming European Council meeting, the Romanian Secretary of State for European Affairs, Melania Gabriela Ciot, representing the Council Presidency, stated that the European Council will require ‘credible justification’ by the UK government for a technical extension of the Article 50 negotiations. Similar reactions came from other EU leaders, including the Dutch Prime Minister, Mark Rutte, the European Commission President, Jean-Claude Juncker and the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk. The European Commission’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, reiterated that, if the UK wants to leave the EU in an orderly fashion, the negotiated withdrawal agreement is the only possible way. He also stressed that ’the responsibility for the Brexit decision belongs solely to the United Kingdom, and today the responsibility to find a way out of the impasse that the negotiations are in, lies fair and square with the United Kingdom’.

During the plenary debate, some MEPs expressed their regret that yet another European Council meeting would be dominated by the Brexit debate, and that, as a result, other more pressing issues for the EU would not receive the necessary attention. MEPs also stressed that a prerequisite for a prolongation was for the UK Government to specify concretely what it intends to use the time for

Written by Philip Boucher,

Anthony Intraversato on Unsplash

With the Cambridge Analytica scandal, it became clear how technologies such as social media and techniques such as psychological profiling can be combined in election campaigns with worrying effects. Digital forms of personalised political messaging can be highly automated. They start and end with social media, which provides both the data for categorising users and the medium for targeting them with personalised messages. Messages might be designed to favour a particular candidate or to encourage widespread discord and mistrust. In either case, it could lead to more polarised societies in which citizens share less common ground and are less understanding of those with different political ideologies, attitudes to populism, or perspectives on specific topics such as immigration.

These same technologies and techniques also shape trends in news production and consumption. As newspaper sales dwindle, outlets increasingly rely upon advertising revenue generated by clicks, making extensive use of social media platforms and user profiling. Public debate increasingly occurs via these social media platforms in which citizens, politicians, companies and bots communicate directly to each other without the traditional filters of journalistic standards and editorial oversight. It has been suggested that, where citizens increasingly rely on such platforms for news, they risk entering ‘filter bubbles’ in which they are exposed to a narrow range of perspectives oriented around their own profiles, shielded from contrasting views, in a broad trend that could also lead to more polarised societies. In this context, STOA launched two studies to explore the mechanisms by which these technologies and techniques may foster polarisation in Europe, and published an accompanying Options Brief.

One study, conducted by Richard Fletcher and Joy Jenkins of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford, considered the effects of technology on news production and consumption across Europe and their potential to lead to more polarised societies. One of its key messages is how little we understand about the mechanisms that link news production and social polarisation. The internet has created more consumer choice, to the point where most people select their own news sources based on their ideologies and preferences. Yet, the review found little evidence to support the ‘filter bubble’ thesis, or that exposure to populist material has a significant effect on citizens with mainstream views. However, there are key exceptions to these findings at the fringes, with evidence that people who already hold extreme ideological views or attitudes to populism tend to develop even stronger perspectives when exposed to news with which they either strongly agree or strongly disagree. The authors suggest that individuals’ basic interest in current affairs is a key factor as – in today ‘s high-choice media environment – some users may opt-out of news consumption entirely. Such news aversion could be a worrying trend if healthy democracies rely upon citizens understanding their political system.

The other study was conducted by Lisa Maria Neudert and Nahema Marchal of the University of Oxford, and focused on trends in political campaigning and communication strategies. It highlighted a trend towards more emotionally charged content – particularly negative material that provokes fear, hatred or disgust – in political communications. While such highly charged and targeted messages may be effective, they can also escalate mistrust and tensions between groups with different perspectives and, thus, foster social polarisation. The review also highlighted that some ‘clickbait’ based on political issues may be designed for purely financial purposes, but have the side-effect of increased polarisation. In other cases, polarisation has been the deliberate aim of manipulative political campaigns by hostile foreign and domestic political actors, making use of automated bots and ‘dark ads’ to amplify disagreement, provoke hostility between different groups, and undermine social cohesion.

Hasty policy action that attempts to control communications directly – for example by restricting some media content or political expression – could do more harm than good, and could even have ‘chilling effects’ on democracy. However, both studies present policy options that could help to foster healthier digital environments and mitigate trends towards social polarisation. These are combined and further developed in the STOA Options Brief, which includes options targeting news consumption, digital divides, political communications, news producers and governance institutions.

The authors of both studies presented their work during the STOA Panel meeting on 14 March 2019, which can be viewed here.

Written by Mihalis Kritikos,

Artificial intelligence (AI) poses new risks for human rights, as diverse as non-discrimination, privacy, security, freedom of expression, freedom of association, the right to work and access to public services. The current discussion focuses on whether and how the EU could develop a human rights-based approach to AI, given that there are no established methodologies to track effects/harm on human rights, to identify who is being excluded from AI systems and to assess the potential for discrimination in the use of machine learning.

Europe has the opportunity to shape the direction of AI at least from a socio-ethical perspective. The EU’s latest initiatives indicate the desire of its main institutional actors to react swiftly to these major human rights challenges and lead the development of a human-centric AI. More specifically, the European Commission communication on artificial intelligence for Europe (April 2018), launching the EU strategy on AI, made particular reference to the need to invest in people as a cornerstone of a human-centric, inclusive approach to AI, and reaffirmed its support for research into human-AI interaction and cooperation. Recently, the Commission’s High Level Expert Group on AI proposed the first draft AI ethics guidelines to the Commission, which address values protected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, such as privacy and personal data protection, human dignity, non-discrimination and consumer protection. The guidelines ask all stakeholders to evaluate possible effects of AI on human beings and the common good, and to ensure that AI is human-centric: AI should be developed, deployed and used with an ‘ethical purpose’, grounded in, and reflective of, fundamental rights, societal values and the ethical principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy of humans, and justice.

The recently adopted European Parliament resolution on a comprehensive European industrial policy on artificial intelligence and robotics makes explicit reference to the need for Europe to take the lead on the global stage by deploying only ethically embedded AI. It recommends that the Member States establish AI ethics monitoring and oversight bodies and encourage companies developing AI to set up ethics boards and draw up ethical guidelines for their AI developers, and requests an ethics-by-design approach that will facilitate the embedding of values such as transparency and explainability in the development of AI. The resolution points out that the guiding ethical framework should be based on the principles and values enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as well as on existing ethical practices and codes.

#AIHumanRightsSTOA

Are these initiatives sufficient in terms of safeguarding a human rights lens in the governance of AI? Do we need legally-binding norms in this field rather than soft-law instruments or even the development of new human rights? Should the EU legislators consider the need to integrate a requirement for systematic human rights impact assessments or even for developing new legal mechanisms for redress/remedy for human rights violations resulting from AI?

The Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA) and Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) are organising a workshop entitled ‘Is artificial intelligence a human rights issue?’ to discuss and evaluate the efficiency and adequacy of these EU-wide initiatives from a human rights’ perspective. This will be an opportunity to learn more about the effects of AI upon the protection of human rights, and to participate in a debate with key experts in the subject. The workshop will open with a welcome address from STOA Chair Eva Kaili (S&D, Greece), and a keynote speech by Professor Jason M. Schultz, from the NYU School of Law and former Senior Advisor on Innovation and Intellectual Property to the White House, and author (along with Aaron Perzanowski) of ‘The End of Ownership: Personal Property in the Digital Economy‘.

A welcome address from STOA Chair Eva Kaili (S&D, Greece) will be followed with a keynote speech by Professor Jason M. Schultz of the NYU School of Law, former Senior Advisor on Innovation and Intellectual Property to the White House, and author (along with Aaron Perzanowski) of a well-known book on The End of Ownership: Personal Property in the Digital Economy. This will be followed by three panel discussions, including presentations from a wide range of experts.

The first panel includes presentations from Ekkehard Ernst, Chief Macroeconomist, Research Department, ILO, Joanna Goodey, Head of Unit, European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and Dimitris Panopoulos, Suite 5. Panel 1 will be moderated by STOA Chair, Eva Kaili,

Joining Panel 2 will be Silkie Carlo, Chief Executive of Big Brother Watch, Lorena Jaume-Palasi, founder of the Ethical Tech Society and Lofred Madzou, Project Lead, AI & Machine Learning, World Economic Forum. This panel is moderated by Marietje Schaake (ALDE, the Netherlands).

Panel 3 includes Can Yeginsu, Barrister, 4 New Square Chambers, Professor Aimee van Wynsberghe, TU Delft-Member of the High-Level Expert Group on AI and Fanny Hidvegi, Access Now, Member of the High-Level Expert Group on AI, and is moderated by Michał BONI, (EPP, Poland), who will also moderate the Q&A discussion and debate and make the closing remarks.

Interested in joining the workshop? Watch the live webstream on the STOA event page.

Written by Wouter van Ballegooij and Elodie Thirion,

© ArTo / Fotolia

Ensuring that legally residing non-European Union nationals, referred to as third-country nationals (TCNs), are treated fairly and in a non-discriminatory manner is the goal of the EU’s efforts to build a comprehensive EU immigration policy. Accordingly, the EU has adopted secondary legislation covering different categories of TCNs and various stages of the migration process. The European Parliament has furthermore highlighted the need for a comprehensive labour migration policy for TCNs, and for better integration of TCN migrants to meet the European Union’s objectives for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, as well as to fill gaps identified in the EU labour market – which lead to loss of individual income and tax revenue.

Gaps and barriers

This cost of non-Europe report however identifies a number of gaps and barriers. These result from the lack of incorporation and implementation of international and EU human rights and labour standards, and the sectoral approach taken in the EU legal framework, which does not cover all TCNs and not in the same way, and in part leaves parallel national schemes in place. The report particularly highlights a number of obstacles TCNs face, including regarding equal treatment, entry and re-entry conditions, work authorisation, residence status, intra-EU mobility, social security coordination, family reunification and the recognition of qualifications.

Visit the European Parliament homepage on migration in Europe.

Impacts

This cost of non-Europe report draws a distinction between impacts at the individual level, due to an inadequate protection of fundamental rights and freedoms, and economic impacts upon Member States and the EU.

Beyond giving rise to discrimination, the gaps and barriers in EU action and cooperation in the area of legal migration result in income losses at individual level and lost tax revenue at societal (aggregate EU) level. The greatest impacts are due to unequal treatment with regard to access to employment, employment conditions including remuneration, and the barriers imposed on family migrants.

At societal level, these deficiencies undermine the EU’s ability to attract workers, and especially to address shortages in particular sectors or occupations in the EU labour market, as well as the effects of demographic change (an ageing population), and to boost innovation and growth. These deficiencies all negatively impact GDP growth. It is, however, very difficult to estimate a monetised benefit of the EU attracting further TCNs. This is due to the many factors to take into account, especially when making longer-term predictions.

Policy options

This report identifies seven policy options the EU could adopt to tackle the identified gaps and barriers:

• implement and enforce existing standards more efficiently;
• extend EU legislation gradually to include other sectors; or
• revisit the idea of adopting a binding immigration code covering all TCNs.

Depending on the policy option pursued, some €21.75 billion in individual and economic benefits could be achieved each year.

Read this study on ‘The Cost of Non-Europe in the area of legal migration‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Katarzyna Sochacka and Clare Ferguson,

© European Union 2019 – Source : EP

Highlights of the March I plenary session included debates on Brexit, preparation of the European Council meeting of 21-22 March 2019, and the latest debate on the Future of Europe, with Peter Pellegrini, Slovakia’s Prime Minister. Parliament also held debates on a proposed European human rights violations sanctions regime; the situation in Venezuela and Nicaragua; opening EU-US trade negotiations; climate change; gender balance in nominations to EU economic and monetary affairs bodies; and on the urgency to establish an EU blacklist of third countries with weak regimes on anti-money-laundering and countering terrorist financing. Finally, Parliament adopted first-reading positions on three further proposed funding programmes for the 2021-2027 period. A number of Brexit-preparedness measures were also adopted.

European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS)

Members debated and approved the interinstitutional agreement on upgrading the current European Criminal Records Information System, ensuring that the revised system upholds fundamental rights, that dual nationals will not be subject to the same fingerprinting requirements as third-country nationals, and that the need to include data on dual-national citizens in the system will be re-assessed in a future revision.

Cybersecurity

To increase resilience to cyber-attacks that could severely disrupt citizens’ lives, health and environment, it is proposed to give a stronger role to the current EU Agency for Network Information Security (ENISA), and to create a cybersecurity certification framework for IT systems, repealing the previous EU Cybersecurity Act. Members debated two reports: approving a trilogue agreement broadening ENISA’s role to consulting and advising governments, citizens and businesses on cybersecurity; and referring the establishment of a European Cybersecurity Industrial, Technology and Research Centre and a Network of National Coordination Centres, back to the Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) Committee.

Unfair trading practices in the food supply chain

Members debated and approved, by an overwhelming majority, the text of the new directive on unfair trading practices in the food supply chain, to combat the disadvantages small farmers experience when competing against large conglomerates. Parliament’s Agriculture & Rural Development Committee has succeeded in ensuring that the rules extend to all types of actors, include all agricultural products, and cover an extended list of prohibited unfair trading practices. The EU Council must formally approve the directive before it enters into force. EU Member States will then have 24 months to introduce the new rules into national legislation.

Revising the European citizens’ initiative

Although the European citizens’ initiative has enabled a million or more EU citizens to bring issues, such as ‘Right2Water’ and ‘Ban Glyphosate’, to the forefront of EU attention, Parliament has criticised the mechanism for its lack of effectiveness. Members debated and approved an interinstitutional agreement on revising the European citizens’ initiative to ensure that successful initiatives have greater political impact. The revision includes stronger support for organisers, simpler rules, better digital and physical facilities, longer deadlines for European Commission responses, and a new centralised collection system (by 2020).

European Accessibility Act

Seeking to ensure that the 70 million people in the EU who live with a disability are able to access both products (such as computers or phones) and services (such as transport or banking), Parliament debated, and adopted by a very strong majority, a text agreed in interinstitutional negotiations in view of the adoption of the long-awaited European Accessibility Act. The proposed directive aims to harmonise accessibility requirements and clarify the definition of the obligation of accessibility, as laid down in EU law.

Visa Information System

Parliament adopted new rules for a revised EU Visa Information System, which will tighten background checks on visa applicants, and improve information exchange between EU countries, where gaps lead to less security for EU citizens.

Minimum coverage for potential losses stemming from non-performing loans

Following the financial crisis, many citizens and businesses found it difficult to repay loans, leading to a large number of non-performing loans on EU bank balance sheets. Members debated and adopted a provisional agreement between Parliament and Council to amend the current Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR), obliging banks to carry minimum reserves to cover losses on such loans.

Safeguarding competition in air transport

Parliament debated safeguarding competition in air transport and approved the text agreed in interinstitutional negotiations. As the original legislation to protect the EU against possible unfair commercial practices in international aviation was ineffective (and never used), the revised regulation seeks to ensure both a high level of connectivity and fair competition with air carriers based outside the EU, allowing the Commission to act if competition is distorted by third-country operators.

Establishment of the European Monetary Fund

Many EU countries experienced financial difficulties during the 2008 financial crisis, leading to the creation of the European Stability Mechanism. Members debated and adopted an interim report, prepared jointly by Parliament’s Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) and Budgets (BUDG) Committees, on proposals to transform this intergovernmental mechanism into a European Monetary Fund. The changes would mean decisions on financial support would be taken by reinforced qualified majority (85 % of the votes), instead of unanimity. However, a decision by Council (where there is marked reluctance on the part of Member States), is still pending – the proposal itself being subject to the consent procedure (under which Parliament formally intervenes only at the end, to accept or reject the Council’s text).

Guidelines for the 2020 EU budget

Next year, 2020, is the last in the current multiannual financial framework, and Members debated and adopted a BUDG committee report on Section III of the proposed guidelines for the 2020 EU budget. It calls for an ambitious budgetary commitment prioritising innovation and research for economic growth, security, improving living and working conditions for citizens, and combating climate change.

Turkey’s 2018 country report

Parliament debated and adopted its position on the 2018 country report on Turkey, which addresses the country’s EU accession aspirations. Human rights issues in Turkey led the Committee on Foreign Affairs to recommend formal suspension of accession negotiations. Nevertheless, it also recommends continued dialogue, support for civil society and democratic reform, and recognises Turkey’s role in assisting refugees.

EU-Afghanistan Cooperation Agreement

Parliament gave its consent to the conclusion of the EU-Afghanistan Cooperation Agreement on Partnership and Development, which seeks to support the Afghan government in peace- and state-building, as well as development and trade, on fighting terrorism and on human rights.

Opening of trilogue negotiations

An Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) committee decision to enter into interinstitutional negotiations regarding type-approval requirements for motor vehicles and their trailers with regard to the safety and protection of their occupants and vulnerable users was confirmed.

Read this ‘At a glance’ note on ‘Plenary round-up – Strasbourg, March 2019‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© velbort / Fotolia

Ukraine will hold presidential elections on 31 March, five years after the Maidan protests resulted in the impeachment of pro-Kremlin President Viktor Yanukovich, setting the country on a course to depeen ties with the West. Russia reacted by launching a hybrid war against Ukraine, which resulted in the illegal annexation of the Crimean peninsula in March 2014, and in military aggression in eastern Ukraine. The outcome of the ballot is uncertain, but the new leader is expected to continue efforts of incumbent President Petro Poroshenko to deepen relations with the European Union and NATO,and continue the country’s reform process, including anti-corruption measures.

A record 44 candidates are contesting the election, with actor and political novice Volodymyr Zelenskiy holding the lead in opinion polls, followed by Poroshenko and former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko. If no candidate secures an absolute majority in the first round, the two top contenders will face each other in a run-off on 21 April.

This note offers links to recent commentaries, studies and reports from major international think tanks on the situation in Ukraine .

Ukraine: What comes after the presidential election?
Carnegie Europe, March 2019

Who is ready to lead Ukraine?
Atlantic Council, March 2019

Patriotism, pressure, populism: How Poroshenko can win
Carnegie Europe, March 2019

No good deed goes unpunished in Ukraine
Atlantic Council, March 2019

Der Donbas-Konflikt
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, February 2019

Kremlin-linked forces in Ukraine’s 2019 elections: On the brink of revenge?
Institut français des relations internationales, February 2019

Ukrainian society ahead of the elections
Carnegie Europe, February 2019

Ukraine’s leading presidential candidates (minus Poroshenko) promise to fight corruption
Atlantic Council, February 2019

Ukraine’s experiment with trust
European Council on Foreign Relations, February 2019

Russia looks to strike at Ukraine’s south again?
Atlantic Council, February 2019

The Ukraine model for Brexit: Is dissociation just like association?
Centre for European Reform, February 2019

L’industrie de défense Ukrainienne
Groupe de Recherche et d’Information sur la Paix et la Sécurité, February 2019

What will the 2019 Ukraine elections spell for the Donbas conflict?
Istituto Affari Internazionali, February 2019

And yet it moves: Post-Soviet frozen conflicts in 2019
Istituto Affari Internazionali, February 2019

The European deterrence initiative
Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment, January 2019

Elections in 2019: Risks of more interference
German Marshall Fund, January 2019

The Sea of Azov should not become a Russian lake
European Policy Centre, December 2018

No Russian let-up on Ukraine
Rand Europe, December 2018

Advancing natural gas reform in Ukraine
Council on Foreign Relations, December 2018

Crimea annexation 2.0
Carnegie Europe, November 2018

Ukraine’s new front is Europe’s big challenge
European Council on Foreign Relations, November 2018

Time for Trump to stand up to Putin after the Sea of Azov attack
German Marshall Fund, November 2018

Supporting political stability by strengthening local government
Danish Institute of International Studies, November 2018

What is happening in relations of Ukraine with its western neighbouring states?
International Centre for Policy Studies, October 2018

Occupied Crimea: Europe’s grey zone
European Policy Centre, October 2018

A Church conflict brews in Ukraine
Carnegie Europe, October 2018

‘Nobody wants us’: The alienated civilians of Eastern Ukraine
International Crisis Group, October 2018

The attitude of Ukrainians toward social democracy
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, October 2018

Migration from Ukraine to Poland: The trend stabilises
Centre for Eastern Studies, October 2018

Russia vs. Ukraine: More of the same?
Brookings Institution, October 2018

The struggle for good governance in Eastern Europe
Centre for European Policy Studies, September 2018

Ukraine’s incomplete transformation
Carnegie Europe, September 2018

Deepening EU-Ukrainian relations: What, why and how?
Centre for European Policy Studies, September 2018

How Eastern Ukraine is adapting and surviving: The case of Kharkiv
Carnegie Europe, September 2018

Ukraine and its neighbors: Analysis of regional trends
International Centre for Policy Studies, September 2018

Rebuilding Ukraine: An assessment of EU assistance
Chatham House, August 2018

How Ukraine’s government has struggled to adapt to Russia’s digital onslaught
Council on Foreign Relations, August 2018

Ukraine’s Helsinki hangover
German Marshall Fund, July 2018

Ukraine: The struggle for reforms continues
Bruegel, July 2018

Integrity on trial: Judicial reform in Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova
Centre for European Policy Studies, June 2018

Ukrainian elections: Poroshenko and proliferating populists
European Council on Foreign Relations, May 2018

Poroshenko stands alone: Ukraine politics in a pre-election year
Centre for Eastern Studies, May 2018

A route to national resilience: Building whole-of-society security in Ukraine
International Centre for Defence and Security, April 2018

The EU twinning instrument in Ukraine: Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats
Centre for European Policy Studies, April 2018

Russian social media influence: Understanding Russian propaganda in Eastern Europe
Rand Europe, April 2018

Read this briefing note on ‘Presidential elections in Ukraine‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Lieve Van WOENSEL with Richelle BOONE.

pcfruit / Fotolia

There is a problem: we need to feed 11 billion people by the end of the century, but the growth of agriculture is limited by planetary sustainability boundaries. Since the increase of land use is one of the key drivers for the loss of biodiversity, increasing crop yield could be a solution for meeting the demand. Good crop protection measures are vital for this purpose, and especially the use of plant protection products (PPPs) – insecticides, herbicides and fungicides – has proven to be very helpful in increasing efficiency. However, a strong public concern about PPPs is that they might have a negative impact on health and the environment. Up to now, European legislation has been characterised by an overall wish to reduce the use of PPPs. The question is whether that can be done while at the same time maintaining or increasing crop yield? Do scientists share this public concern? And are there any reliable alternatives to PPPs?

The STOA workshop ‘Farming without agro-chemicals’, which took place on 6 March 2019, gave participants an opportunity to gain a better understanding of the impact of PPPs on food production, and the perspectives of all the different stakeholders in the discussion on PPPs were explored. The event resulted from a proposal submitted to STOA by Mairead McGuinness, first Vice-President of the European Parliament (EPP, Ireland) and a member of the EP Special Committee on pesticides. Mairead McGuinness had earlier requested a STOA study on precision farming, which was published in 2016. That study identified opportunities and concerns regarding precision agriculture in the EU, including for instance the possibility for precision farming to contribute to food security and sustainability.

Another member of the EP Special Committee on pesticides, Anthea McIntyre (ERC, UK), chaired the meeting. In her opening address, she stressed the need for an evidence-based approach in the debates on PPPs, stating that ‘science should come first, last and always in deciding the safety and effectiveness of PPPs’. Anthea McIntyre also underlined that controversy should never be a reason for STOA to shy away from preparing scientific advice on a certain topic. Three professors from the Biosystems Department of the University of Leuven prepared a scientific assessment at STOA’s request, as a background document to spark and support discussion. The gathered MEPs, scientists, representatives of a wide range of organisations, students and interested public found plenty of opportunity to engage in this discussion after six panellists representing different perspectives presented their views.

First, the three professors from the University of Leuven presented their background document. Wannes Keulemans, Head of the Laboratory of Fruit Breeding and Biotechnology of the department, explained that it would be very difficult to produce enough food for 11 billion people without using PPPs. Reductions in the use of PPPs are, however, possible in those cases in which the amount used is high. It should be clear however that such reductions do not necessarily benefit biodiversity: as Professor Keulemans pointed out, many scientific studies do not report a direct and clear relation between biodiversity and PPPs. Other factors, such as land use change, are much more important drivers for biodiversity loss. He therefore stressed that possible environmental benefits of alternative agricultural systems are cancelled out if these systems require significantly more land – because of lower yield – in order to meet the increasing food demand.

Dany Bylemans, who, in addition to working at the University of Leuven, is also the Director of a research centre for fruit cultivation (pcfruit), continued the presentation by stating that all PPPs are by definition bad for human health and the environment. That is, the substances were created to kill. However, chemical PPPs are not by definition more toxic than natural PPPs (‘bio-pesticides’) and, as long as they are used in the correct way, the health risks PPPs create are comparable or even lower than the risks we are willing to take in everyday life. Consumer perception and scientific opinion about PPPs thus differ widely, he argued. Whereas consumers are mostly worried about food additives and PPPs, scientists are more concerned about microbial contamination and nutritional imbalance. Professor Bylemans alerted the audience to the issue that banning PPPs might have an undesirable consequence in this last respect: food perceived as healthy could become too expensive for lower-income classes, enhancing for instance the risk of obesity. In his view, improved risk communication should equip consumers with a more balanced image of PPPs, he added.

To conclude the presentation of the background document, the leader of the ‘Plant Health and Protection’ group at the University of Leuven, Barbara De Coninck, focused on three promising trends for reducing the use of PPPs. The first is to replace chemical PPPs with biological ones, such as natural enemies of the target organisms. Another option would be to opt for resistant cultivars, for instance created by the genome editing technique CRISPR-CAS. Smart farming techniques, such as remote sensing by drones and precision spraying, complete the list. All these trends could be easily incorporated in the integrated pest management (IPM) scheme, which has been compulsory in the EU since 2014. IPM aims to lower risks for human health and the environment through precautionary measures and by using smart combinations of different farming techniques, including the use of natural PPPs.

After introducing the background document, three distinctive stakeholder perspectives on PPPs were explored. As a leader of a Europe-wide agricultural impact assessment programme for the European Crop Protection Association (ECPA), Anne van Drunen Littel illustrated the conventional agricultural viewpoint. She presented the results of an ECPA study that mapped the financial consequences for EU farmers when their toolbox will no longer contain certain PPPs. This study is complementary to environmental and health impact assessments. The study’s conclusion was that, on average, farmers would experience lower yields and higher production costs, underlining the need for good regulation, especially for those farmers that already struggle to make ends meet today.

Isabella Lang, Policy Analyst at the European umbrella organisation for organic food and farming, IFOAM EU, informed the audience about the position of organic farmers. Organic farming differs from conventional farming by allowing only the use of substances that are already naturally occurring in the specific biosystem. She highlighted that organic farming is not just about replacing inputs, but more about developing strategies. The practice is not the opposite of modern technology, Lang stated; instead, it combines tradition, innovation and science to realise its principles. Several other panellists pointed out that organic farming and IPM are actually quite similar in the techniques and strategies they apply to protect health and the environment. During her presentation, Isabella Lang outlined a couple of important and fundamental issues to consider during debate: Should agricultural systems be judged only on yield, or should we also consider inputs such as fertilisers and fossil energy? Could the increasing demand for food justify further intensification of agriculture, or should we focus more on solving problems such as access to food and food waste? And is organic food too expensive, or is conventional food in fact too cheap?

Challenging the attendees to contrast their convictions as citizens with their consumer desires, Marleen Onwezen, a Social Psychologist working at Wageningen Economic Research, delved into the topic of consumer perceptions. She tried in particular to explain why consumers do not necessarily choose products according to the ideals and principles they value as citizens. Many different factors go into decision-making, including irrational ones. Food innovations are, for instance, not always accepted by consumers, not even if they have proven to be beneficial and are considered safe by many scientists. However, Marleen Onwezen emphasised that, although consumers might be irrational in their choices, their behaviour is predictable. Good communication about food innovation and consulting consumers at the earliest stages in the development of new products or techniques could therefore enhance trust in new foods.

During the discussion following the panellists’ talks, workshop participants made many interesting contributions. Mairead McGuinness for instance expressed her concern for conventional farmers faced with uncertainty about their future, now that they see some of their tools disappearing. She wondered about the options for conventional farmers and about how the farmers’ perspective should be incorporated in the efforts towards solving sustainability challenges. Many participants shared this concern, and indicated that they take the interests of both conventional and organic farmers very seriously. In particular, the objective of spreading innovations to as many farmers and as quickly as possible was deemed important. This ties-in with another insight voiced by many attendees: organic and conventional agricultural systems should not be seen as being in competition. As Julie Girling (EPP, UK) stated: ‘I see them as an issue of consumer choice and as an issue of complementarity’. Furthermore, some participants urged that the scope of the discussion should be extended beyond PPPs.

In a wide-ranging and open discussion, panellists and members of the audience brought up a great variety of factors, issues and problems that should be taken into account in order to reach the connected aims of sufficient food production and sustainable agriculture development. Maria Heubuch (Greens/EFA, DE) brought up for instance the problem of food waste. Other factors like the use of animal products, food access, climate change and insect decline were also considered relevant to the debate, to name just a few examples. Keeping an eye on the role of agriculture in the complete food chain and the overall ecosystem was understood to be crucial in working towards sustainability.

To summarise, the overall conclusion of this fruitful exchange of thoughts was that we should stop thinking of conventional and organic agricultural practices as diametrically opposed, and start finding common ground, exchanging ideas, thinking of ways to communicate techniques to farmers, and working together towards a more sustainable agricultural system.

This workshop will be followed by a Scientific Foresight study on sustainable agriculture as decided by the STOA Panel in line with Mairead McGuinness’s initial proposal. This means that, in addition to a scientific analysis, societal concerns will also be investigated and will be taken into account in the formulation of options for courses of action at the EU policy level. As such, the study will go beyond the scope of the workshop summarised in this blog post. While relying on a well-balanced understanding of the current scientific consensus on the relevant topics, STOA, in its workshops and studies, is well aware of the fact that there exists, or may appear in the future, studies presenting a different view to the scientific findings reported. STOA fully respects these studies, and considers it of the utmost importance to welcome them with an open mind. Policy decisions take account of both scientific evidence and societal considerations, including the values, interests and concerns present in society. STOA therefore values all opinions on the use of PPPs and encourages a wide debate on the issue, hopefully supported and sharpened by the scientific evidence available for all to profit from.

Written Stefano Spinaci (1st edition),

© pogonici / Fotolia

On 24 May 2018, the Commission published three proposals for regulations reflecting the EU’s efforts to connect finance with its own sustainable development agenda. The proposals include measures to: create an EU sustainable finance taxonomy; make disclosures relating to sustainable investments and sustainability risks clearer; and establish low-carbon benchmarks. In particular, the proposal for a regulation on disclosures aims to integrate environmental, social and governance considerations into the decision-making process of investors and asset managers. It also aims to increase the transparency duties of financial intermediaries towards end-investors, with regard to sustainability risks and sustainable investment targets. This should reduce investors’ search costs for sustainable investments and enable easier comparison between sustainable financial products in the EU. In the Parliament, the ECON committee adopted its report on the proposed regulation in November 2018. On 7 March 2019, the Romanian EU Council Presidency and the Parliament reached a preliminary agreement on the proposal in trilogue discussions, and that agreement now needs to be confirmed by Parliament, with the plenary vote expected in April.

Versions

• March 2019: ‘Sustainable finance and disclosures: Bringing clarity to investors‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on disclosures relating to sustainable investments and sustainability risks and amending Directive (EU) 2016/2341 Committee responsible: Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) COM(2018) 354 of 24.5.2018 Rapporteur: Paul Tang (S&D, the Netherlands) 2018/0179(COD) Shadow rapporteurs: Sirpa Pietikäinen (EPP, Finland)
Syed Kamall (ECR, United Kingdom)
Lieve Wierinck (ALDE, Belgium)
Matt Carthy (GUE/NGL, Ireland)
Molly Scott Cato (Greens/EFA, United Kingdom) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Confirmation of trilogue agreement in ECON
First-reading vote in plenary

Written by Lieve Van Woensel with Nissy Nevil.

© Elnur / Shutterstock.com

Recent reports of celebrity singer, Taylor Swift, deploying facial recognition technology to spot stalkers at her concerts raised many eyebrows. What started out as a tool to unlock your smartphone or tag photos for you on social media is surreptitiously becoming a means of monitoring people in their daily lives without their consent. What impact and implications are facial recognition technology applications likely to have, and what can be done to ensure the fair engagement of this technology with its users and the public at large?

These days you can take out cash, check in at airports and pay bills just using your face. This is possible thanks to facial recognition (FR) technology, the latest ground-breaking development in data-driven technology. FR technology compares the detected face in a digital image or a video frame with large databases in order to identify or authenticate a person. Not only can this biometric technology be used to identify you, it can also determine your age, gender and sexual orientation. Even more significantly, perhaps, it might soon be used to detect what you are thinking and track your every move, without your consent.

FR technology is linked to emotion recognition, also referred to as affect recognition, which it is claimed can be used to identify moods, emotions and personality, etc. This information could then be used, for instance, to monitor mental health, detect fraudulent insurance claims, influence people’s shopping experiences through personalised advertising, or to spot potential shoplifters. Through emotion recognition, technology based on images or videos of faces also offers the potential to monitor students’ classroom participation, or help employers recruit workers. It is therefore not surprising that demand for FR-enabled applications and the value they offer is booming, leading to a rapid expansion of related industries.

Possible impacts and developments

FR technology is one of the main building blocks of smart environments, and could underpin the smart cities of the future. With FR technology embedded, a smart environment can identify a user, interpret his or her actions or facial expressions and then interact through personalised messages based on the moods and emotions interpreted. The power of FR lies in its potential to be built into various smart environments with a view to providing personalised services.

Facial recognition applications are being piloted by law enforcement authorities at airports and borders to help them address terrorist threats, cross-border crime, irregular migration and child trafficking. Applications are also being pilot tested for use in targeted and mass surveillance and tracking in streets, at football matches and music festivals, at carnivals and at transport hubs. Police have already used this technology to spot people on mental health watch lists, identify protesters at arms fairs and detect stalkers.

FR-enabled applications already facilitate faster entry at events for people who have opted in, as well as payment at restaurants, or for insurance or other purchases. FR is opening up new opportunities for advertisers, retailers and marketers to personalise marketing. Data about customers’ movements and behaviour, combined with mood analysis using emotion recognition, may soon be used by retailers to present customers with customised advertisements. Emotion recognition may also one day be used by recruiters when hiring, or by employers to monitor the moods of employees and adapt the working environment empathetically, or even to track employees’ work engagement patterns.

In healthcare, emotion recognition technology could eventually be used in the diagnosis and treatment of autism, in suicide prevention and in the early detection of Parkinson’s disease. In medical emergencies, mobile applications enabled by FR technology could be used to identify a patient who is unconscious and unable to communicate relevant medical conditions, and to identify features such as age or gender, check if the patient’s medical history already exists in the database, and retrieve the associated medical information. FR might also be used in the future to help the elderly recognise caregivers and visitors, while emotion recognition could be used to detect signs of sadness or depression. All these applications still need the backing of robust scientific evidence before they can be deployed.

While there are no doubt many convenient, new applications, such as face-enabled log-in systems, that are not in themselves problematic, more powerful applications are looming on the horizon and their potential benefits and risks deserve a much closer look. While the use of FR technology for surveillance and law enforcement improves security, the tracking and surveillance of individuals without consent by private parties raises privacy and ethical concerns over the ownership and storage, and use of the images, and could also result in fear and distress. The ’10‑year challenge’ that recently went viral on a number of social media platforms raised the question as to whether the data uploaded were being used to train facial recognition algorithms on age progression and recognition. Sometimes even when consent is given, the purpose for using the technology is not very clear. Applying emotion recognition to hiring and education, etc. could pose high risks, at both individual and societal level. What if algorithms that are meant to help find the candidate best suited to the job actually just perpetuate stereotypes and render a poor service? How can the fair and balanced use of technology be ensured in such cases?

Reports of errors or failures in police use of this technology to identify people shed doubt on the efficacy and purpose of the technology. Reports also show that FR technologies are prone to error when used for datasets of women with dark skin. This kind of bias in algorithms can lead to biased and inaccurate outcomes, with a varying impact on diverse populations and potential implications in the world of work. What can be done to make sure this technology is used fairly? There is a need for policies and regulations to secure the safe and responsible integration of FR technologies and to address the risks posed by blind spots and error. Technology has been shown to be able to detect sexual orientation with higher accuracy than can humans; but research of this kind raises obvious concerns regarding the purposes for which it could be used.

What if some users do not want to give their details or would rather remain anonymous? Can people who do not want their movements tracked for commercial purposes opt out? Could the names of all the entities that collect behavioural biometrics be listed and made publicly available?

Anticipatory policy-making

It is clear that the stakes for FR technology are high in criminal justice, law enforcement, employment, housing, recruitment, health and education. FR is expected to be a booming market in the years to come. An in-depth examination of its potential benefits and risks is essential in order to understand the impact on civil rights and liberties. New regulations must ensure that the algorithms deployed are fair, unbiased and balanced, and the purposes for which they are used is made clear rather than being kept secret. It is also crucial that stakeholders employing FR be held accountable for they ways they collect, use and store data.

Article 6 and Article 9 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) refer to the consent that an individual must provide before his or her personal data (including biometric data) can be processed for a specific purpose. That consent is one of a number of conditions that must be met if the processing of an individual’s data is to be considered legal. Article 32 provides for the protection and error-proof recovery of personal data in the event of a physical or technical incident. Are the provisions of the GDPR enough to address the concerns raised by FR technology?

The first Draft Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI were recently issued by the European Commission’s High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence. They cover issues such as fairness, safety, transparency, the future of work, democracy and, more broadly, the impact on the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, including privacy and personal data protection, dignity, consumer protection and non-discrimination. EU law-makers, together with all FR technology stakeholders will need to interact, engage and play an active role to help the Commission to formulate regulations that secure the fair use of this technology.

Read this complete ‘at a glance’ note on ‘What if your emotions were tracked to spy on you?‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by François Théron (1st edition),

© bruiser / Fotolia

Since 2008, in line with its action plan to enhance the security of explosives, the European Union has considered regulating chemicals that could be used to produce homemade explosives to be a priority. A first legislative act in this regard – Regulation (EU) No 98/2013 on the marketing and use of explosives precursors – was adopted in 2013.

The 2015 Paris and 2016 Brussels terrorist attacks and their operating modes, which were based on the use of homemade explosives, led to an assessment of the efficiency of the 2013 regulation. To take into account existing challenges, and increase stakeholders’ ability to implement and enforce restrictions and controls under the regulation, the European Commission launched its revision in February 2017. On 17 April 2018, it adopted a proposal for a new regulation on explosives precursors.

Following trilogue negotiations, an agreement between the European Parliament and the Council was reached on 5 February 2019. The Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE), approved the agreed text on 19 February 2019. The vote in plenary is due to take place in April 2019.

Versions

• March 2019: ‘Explosives precursors: Fighting the misuse of chemicals by terrorists‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the marketing and use of explosives precursors, amending Annex XVII to Regulation No 1907/2006 and repealing Regulation(EU) No 98/2013 on the marketing and use of explosives precursors Committee responsible: Civil liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) COM(2018) 209 of 17.4.2018 Rapporteur: Andrejs Mamikins (S&D, Latvia) 2018/0103(COD) Shadow rapporteurs: Tomáš Zdechovský (EPP, Czech Republic)
Helga Stevens (ECR, Belgium)
Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE, France)
Marina Albiol Guzmán (GUE/NGL, Spain)
Bodil Valero (Greens/EFA, Sweden) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: First-reading vote in plenary

Visit the European Parliament homepage on the fight against terrorism.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/security/20180703STO07127/the-eu-s-fight-against-terrorism

Written by Katrien Luyten,

Entering the EU as a non-European is not too difficult for people from stable countries. Those planning to visit one or more EU Member States can get in as a tourist, with or without a visa. If the intention is to live and work for a longer period, they can use the many possibilities offered by labour migration. Regular mobility schemes also include provisions for other categories such as students, researchers, au pairs and voluntary workers. People wishing to join a family member who is already residing legally in the EU might even be eligible for family reunification. However, for people coming from countries at war or where democracy is in serious peril, or who happen to live in a non-EU country after fleeing their own country, or who are simply looking for a better life, the options are more limited. Moreover, even when options exist, gaining access to them is not always possible for people who find themselves in precarious, dangerous or even life-threatening situations.

In 2015, a record number of people tried to reach Europe by all means, often risking their lives along their journeys. Although the number of irregular arrivals in the EU is back to pre-crisis levels, immigration remains one of the key concerns of European citizens and is expected to remain a challenge for years to come.

Visit the European Parliament homepage on migration in Europe.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/priorities/refugees/20170629STO78632/migration-in-europe

In order to address this challenge, the EU has embarked on a process of reform aimed at rebuilding its common asylum policies on fairer and more solid ground, strengthening its external borders by reinforcing the links between border controls and security, and renewing cooperation with third countries on migration issues. A forward-looking and comprehensive European immigration policy, based on solidarity and respect for European values, requires a balanced approach to dealing with both irregular and legal migration. The EU is committed to help create more, safe and controlled channels to migration both to help people in need of protection and to address labour market needs and skills shortages adequately.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Legal migration to the EU‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Click to view slideshow.

Written by Carla Stamegna (1st edition),

© Stephen Orsillo / Fotolia

The recessions resulting from the financial crisis that broke out at the end of the last decade have caused economic difficulties for more and more EU companies and citizens in recent years, leaving them unable to repay their loans. As a result many EU banks have accumulated high volumes of non-performing loans (NPLs) on their balance-sheets. Although it has almost halved since December 2014, the ratio between NPLs and total loans extended by EU banks (the NPL ratio) remains historically high when measured against the ratios of other advanced economies. NPLs represent a risk to banks’ balance sheets inasmuch as future losses they might generate are not sufficiently covered by appropriate reserves. To tackle this issue, in March 2018 the Commission adopted a comprehensive package of measures, including a proposal for a regulation amending the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) to introduce common minimum loss coverage levels (a ‘statutory backstop’) for newly originated loans that become non-performing.

Versions

• March 2019: ‘Minimum loss coverage for non-performing loans‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on amending Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 as regards minimum loss coverage for nonperforming exposures Committee responsible: Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) COM(2018) 134 of 14.3.2018 Co-rapporteurs: Esther de Lange (EPP, Netherlands)
Roberto Gualtieri (S&D, Italy) 2018/0060(COD) Shadow rapporteurs: Bernd Lucke (ECR, Germany)
Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE, Spain)
Matt Carthy (GUE/NGL, Ireland)
Sven Giegold (Greens/EFA, Germany)
Marco Zanni (ENF, Italy) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Vote in plenary

With European elections coming up in May 2019, you probably want to know how the European Union impacts your daily life, before you think about voting. In the latest in a series of posts on what Europe does for you, your family, your business and your wellbeing, we look at what Europe does for babies.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

© famveldman / Fotolia

Your baby is special. The European Union helps babies’ parents and guardians through measures aimed at children in general that always take the babies’ best interests as a primary consideration.

The EU supports babies’ right to maintain a personal relationship and direct contact with both parents, unless that is contrary to their interests. Their mothers have a right to at least 14 weeks of maternity leave, and either of their parents have a right to take at least four months of parental leave to care for them.

The EU protects also babies’ health. Their food has to be safe and meet high standards, such as no detectable presence of pesticide residues. Their toys have to respect high safety requirements, especially regarding the use of chemicals. Their mothers are not allowed to work at night or in conditions that would jeopardise their babies’ health while pregnant, breastfeeding, or having just given birth.

Furthermore, the EU offers policy and financial support to improve early childhood education and care. It helps to increase the quantity and quality of childcare facilities and offers support for staff development. The EU also finances research on how to create services that best meet babies’ needs.

Finally, babies benefit from EU law and funding that addresses different forms of violence (e.g. sexual abuse and exploitation, human trafficking). And if a baby should go missing, the EU has launched a hotline number (116000).

Further information

• EPRS publication on maternity, paternity and parental leave in the EU, 2017, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_BRI(2017)599323
• Handbook on European law relating to the rights of the child, http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2015/handbook-european-law-child-rights
• European Commission website on the rights of the child, https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/justice-and-fundamental-rights/rights-child_en

With European elections coming up in May 2019, you probably want to know how the European Union impacts your daily life, before you think about voting. In the latest in a series of posts on what Europe does for you, your family, your business and your wellbeing, we look at what Europe does for wine consumers.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

© AlenKadr / Fotolia

The identity and reputation of EU wine regions are protected through the EU’s geographical indications (GI), which are recorded in something called the E-Bacchus register. GIs are intended to protect consumers from misleading marketing. They also provide information to consumers on the origin of the wine and grape varieties used. In addition, the European Commission keeps a list of wine grape varieties that countries have agreed may be grown on their soil. This list runs into the thousands and reflects the huge diversity of EU wine regions.

On average, EU consumers account for over half of all wine consumption worldwide. Consumers have become increasingly health-conscious, prompting demand for more detailed information on wine labels. EU law in this area is designed to ensure that consumers are properly informed about what they eat and drink. However, drinks with an alcohol content above 1.2 % are exempt from rules on ingredients listing, for example, or on providing information on sugar levels and calories.

In response to this exemption, and to the fact that some EU countries have additional labelling requirements for alcoholic drinks, the European Parliament adopted a resolution in 2015 calling on the European Commission to propose EU rules for the indication of the calorie content of alcoholic beverages. In March 2017, the Commission told EU wine producers that they had one year to come up with a self-regulatory scheme aimed at providing consumers with information about the ingredients present in alcoholic drinks and their nutritional value.

Further information

• European Commission press release, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-551_en.htm
• EU Regulation on food labelling, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32011R1169&from=EN
• European Commission’s Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development website, http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/markets/wine/e-bacchus/
• European Commission report on mandatory labelling of ingredients and nutrition declaration of alcoholic beverages, https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/safety/docs/fs_labelling-nutrition_legis_alcohol-report_en.pdf

With European elections coming up in May 2019, you probably want to know how the European Union impacts your daily life, before you think about voting. In the latest in a series of posts on what Europe does for you, your family, your business and your wellbeing, we look at what Europe does for bank account holders.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

© MichaelJBerlin/ Fotolia

Bank accounts are an essential part of everyday life, allowing us to manage our money, shop online, and pay bills.

Despite continuous efforts to integrate financial services further, European citizens often still find it difficult to open an account in another EU country or to change banks. In addition, bank fees are sometimes high and not particularly transparent.

Thanks to the Directive on Payment Accounts, anyone residing legally in the European Union has the right to open a payment account with basic features (cash withdrawals and payment transactions) in any EU country. In addition, the Payment Services Directive introduced a set of rules to improve the level of transparency for fees for payment services. The Directive on Payment Accounts builds on this and provides for several tools (such as independent websites that compare the payment account fees charged by different banks) to make fees clearer to us, the consumers, and to allow us to make more informed choices.

Lastly, the Directive on Payment Accounts addresses the issue of payment account switching: until recently, bank customers wishing to change bank payment accounts could face delays or other problems when trying to transfer recurring payments – such as standing orders – from one account to another. To remedy this, the directive establishes a quick procedure for those who want to switch their account from one bank to another in the same EU country and provides that, in cases of account-switching between two EU countries, the bank hosting the account to be closed must assist in the process.

Further information

• Payment accounts – Directive 2014/92/EU, https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/payment-accounts-directive-2014-92-eu_en
• Payment services – Directive 2015/2366/EU, https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/payment-services-psd-2-directive-eu-2015-2366_en
• Opening/switching bank accounts and information on fees, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/LSU/?uri=CELEX:32014L0092

With European elections coming up in May 2019, you probably want to know how the European Union impacts your daily life, before you think about voting. In the latest in a series of posts on what Europe does for you, your family, your business and your wellbeing, we look at what Europe does for air travellers to and from peripheral and under-served regions.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

© manifeesto / Fotolia

Do you live in a peripheral or under-served region? If so, the EU is working to ensure that regions like yours are linked up to the air travel network.

Europeans have access to many more destinations than they used to thanks to the liberalisation of aviation in the EU in the 1990s (there are almost eight times as many routes now as there were in 1992). However, this may not ring true for you. In some remote regions and islands there is either insufficient demand or simply not enough flights, if any at all, to serve the needs of local communities.

To guarantee the economic and social development of these regions, the EU authorises exceptions to free market principles in aviation. Under certain conditions, EU law allows EU countries to impose public service obligations (PSO) in order to maintain scheduled air services on routes that are vital for peripheral or under-served regions. The operator’s choices have to be transparent and non-discriminatory, and information must be publicly available (on an EU website).

In 2017, there were 179 PSO-type routes in 13 European countries (Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom). Most of them were domestic routes while only seven linked airports in two different countries. France has the largest number of this kind of route (40) with some 5.7 million passengers travelling on these routes every year. In Ireland, meanwhile, PSOs represent a substantial share of domestic traffic (70 %).

Further information

• European Commission’s Directorate General for Mobility and Transport,
  EU Aviation: 25 years of reaching new heights – European Commission
• European Commission’s Directorate General for Mobility and Transport,
  https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/internal-market/pso_en
• European Commission’s Directorate General for Mobility and Transport,
  https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/aviation-strategy_en

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© michal812 / Fotolia

The European Union held its first ever summit with the Arab League in February, highlighting the growing importance of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) in tackling problems such as security, terrorism, migration and energy supply. At their meeting in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, more than 40 leaders from the two blocs discussed issues ranging from ways to fight poverty and reducing irregular migration to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, instability in Libya and wars in Syria and Yemen. The summit’s declaration called for stronger economic and political cooperation as well as efforts to support the multilateral, rules-based international order.

This note offers links to recent commentaries and reports by major international think tanks on the general problems found within the region and some specific countries. More reports on the region can be found in a previous edition of ‘What Think Tanks are Thinking’ published in October 2017. The issue of Iran will be discussed in one of the forthcoming issues of the series.

Morocco-Saudi relations: Trouble amongst royals?
Brookings Institution, March 2019

The EU-Arab Summit: A chance to reset relations with the Arab world?
Centre for European Policy Studies, February 2019

General Haftar’s Offensive in the Fezzan Region and the Italian-French competition
Karim Atlantic Council, February 2019

Libya’s Conflicts Enter a Dangerous New Phase
Stiftung Wissenshaft Und Politik, February 2019

Tunisia in 2019: A pivotal year?
International Crisis Group, February 2019

Contested multilateralism: The United Nations and the Middle East
Menara, Instituto Affari Internazionali, February 2019

Interregnum: The Regional order in the Middle East and North Africa after 2011
Menara, Instituto Affari Internazionali, February 2019

Four game changers in Europe’s south
Carnegie Europe, February 2019

The Middle East’s shifting energy politics
Chatham House, February 2019

La Chine et l’Égypte après le ‘Printemps arabe’: Combler le vide ?
Groupe de Recherche et d’Information sur la Paix et la Sécurité, February 2019

Restoration, transformation and adaptation: Authoritarianism after 2011 in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran
Menara, Instituto Affari Internazionali, January 2019

The water-energy-food security nexus in the Western Mediterranean
IEMed, January 2019

A year after the defeat of ISIS in Iraq, what has changed?
Middle East Institute, January 2019

Refugee movements in the Middle East: Old crises, new ideas
Instituto Affari Internazionali, January 2019

Restoration, transformation and adaptation: Authoritarianism after 2011 in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran
Danish Institute of International Studies, January 2019

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

Saudi Arabia as a peace peddler? The limits of Riyadh’s influence over Israeli–Palestinian diplomacy
Instituto Affari Internazionali, January 2019

The lack of disarmament in the Middle East: A thorn in the side of the NPT
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, January 2019

The Levant: Search for a regional order
Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, January 2019

Saudi Arabia, armaments and conflict in the Middle East
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, December 2018

The EU Global Strategy and the MENA Region: In search of resilience
Instituto Affari Internazionali, December 2018

Europe and Iran: The Economic and Commercial Dimensions of a Strained Relationship
Istituto Affari Internazionali, December 2018

Economic policy challenges in Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
Bruegel, December 2018

Short term fixes for long-lasting troubles: Why IMF reforms won’t solve Egypt’s (political) economic problems
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, December 2018

The quest for a regional order in the Middle East
Egmont, December 2018

The effect of Western engagement on Libyan peace process
Institute for Foreign Affairs and Trade, December 2018

Weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East and North Africa
Instituto Affari Internazionali, November 2018

Youth unemployment: Common problem, different solutions?
Bruegel, November 2018

Armed conflicts and the erosion of the state: The cases of Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Syria
Instituto Affari Internazionali, November 2018

Testing the water: How water scarcity could destabilise the Middle East and North Africa
European Council on Foreign Relations, November 2018

As the situation in Gaza worsens, it’s time for the EU to step in: Trump has proven the US can’t help any more
Centre for European Reform, November 2018

Six days, fifty years: The June 1967 war and its aftermath
Institute for National Security Studies, November 2018

How to halt Yemen’s slide into famine
International Crisis Group, November 2018

Building trust: The challenge of peace and stability in the Mediterranean
Istituto per gli Studi di Politica Internazionale, November 2018

Regional geopolitical rivalries in the Middle East: Implications for Europe
Instituto Affari Internazionali, October 2018

Political (dis)order and coercive organisations in the Levant
Clingendael, October 2018

The impact of global decarbonisation policies and technological improvements on oil and gas producing countries in the Middle East and North Africa
Bruegel, October 2018

After Khashoggi disappearance, business sours on Mohammed bin Salman
Chatham House, October 2018

The arc of crisis in the MENA region: Fragmentation, decentralization, and Islamist opposition
Istituto per gli Studi di Politica Internazionale, October 2018

What Egypt’s El-Sisi and the EU have in common when it comes to women’s rights
Centre for European Policy Studies, October 2018

Democratisation after the Arab Spring: how can the EU effectively support Tunisia and Egypt?
Österreichische Gesellschaft für Europapolitik, September 2018

Optimising the impact of European cultural, science and innovation diplomacy in Egypt and Tunisia
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, September 2018

Order from chaos: Stabilising Libya the local way
European Council on Foreign Relations, July 2018

Lebanon-EU relations and ways forward: Qualitative research findings with key stakeholders in Lebanon
Istituto Affari Internazionali, June 2018

Actors in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Interests, narratives and the reciprocal effects of the occupation
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, June 2018

The Gulf monarchies’ armed forces at the crossroads
Institut français des relations internationales, May 2018

Egypt after the presidential election
Centre for European Policy Studies, May 2018

Saudi Arabia: Back to Baghdad
International Crisis Group, May 2018

Politics of recognition and denial: Minorities in the MENA region
European Institute of the Mediterranean, May 2018

The Middle East’s new battle lines
European Council on Foreign Relations, May 2018

The EU-Tunisia privileged partnership. What next?
European Institute of the Mediterranean, May 2018

Alone in the desert? How France can lead Europe in the Middle East
European Council on Foreign Relations, April 2018

Iran’s priorities in a turbulent Middle East
International Crisis Group, April 2018

Libya: moving beyond the transitional mood
Barcelona Centre for International Affairs, April 2018

How to combat the causes of refugee flows: The EU-Jordan compact in practice
Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, April 2018

Crisis and Breakdown: How Can the EU Foster Resilience in the Middle East and North Africa?
Istituto Affari Internazionali, January 17, 2018

Read this briefing on ‘The EU and Middle East and North Africa‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Clare Ferguson,

© European Parliament / P.Naj-Oleari

The agenda for the first plenary session in March features, for this month’s debate on the Future of Europe, the attendance on Tuesday morning of Peter Pellegrini, Prime Minister of the Slovak Republic. The Council and European Commission will make statements on Wednesday morning on climate change, and on preparation of the European Council meeting of 21 and 22 March 2019 (which will deal with Brexit preparations – also the subject of several reports, covering issues from fisheries to transport and aviation, expected to be put to the vote on Tuesday morning and Wednesday lunchtime). A statement from the Commission on recommendations for opening negotiations between the EU and the USA is scheduled for Wednesday afternoon.

Data collected for security purposes, and the security of that data, are also very present on the agenda. A joint debate on Monday evening on the European Criminal Records Information System, will consider legislative proposals to upgrade the current system. The changes propose to plug a gap in the system’s coverage, by introducing a search mechanism and by centralising the data for third-country nationals, to allow authorities to share records of non-EU nationals’ criminal convictions. Parliament has been keen to ensure that the revised system upholds fundamental rights, that dual nationals would not be subject to the same fingerprinting requirements as third-country nationals, and that the need to include the sensitive issue of data on dual national citizens in the system would be re-assessed under a future revision.

Another system, this time for border management, the EU Visa Information System, needs to be updated to tighten background checks on visa applicants, and to improve information exchange between EU countries where gaps lead to less security. Parliament will debate a report on Tuesday night that seeks to share the data with other EU systems when the subjects are particularly vulnerable, or are illegally present on EU territory, whilst maintaining strong protection for individuals’ rights to confidentiality. However, this increasing use of IT systems by government bodies and other essential services, such as hospitals, also highlights the equally rising risk of cyber-attacks that could severely disrupt citizens’ lives, health and environment. To increase resilience to such attacks, it is proposed to give a stronger role to the current EU Agency for Network Information Security (ENISA), and to create a cybersecurity certification framework for IT systems, repealing the previous EU Cybersecurity Act. Members will debate two reports on Monday evening on an agreement broadening ENISA’s role to consulting and advising governments, citizens and businesses on cybersecurity, and on establishing a European Cybersecurity Industrial, Technology and Research Centre and a Network of National Coordination Centres.

Although the European citizens’ initiative has allowed one million EU citizens to bring issues such as ‘Right2Water’ and ‘Ban Glyphosate’ to the forefront of EU attention, Parliament has criticised the mechanism for its lack of effectiveness. On Monday evening, Members will debate the proposed revision of the European citizens’ initiative to ensure that successful initiatives have greater political impact, by strengthening support for organisers, simplifying the rules and prolonging the deadline for the European Commission to respond.

Seeking to ensure that the 70 million people in the EU who live with a disability are able to access both products (such as computers, telephones and televisions) and services (such as media, transport and banking), on Wednesday lunchtime Members will vote on a text agreed in interinstitutional negotiations in view of the adoption of the long-awaited European Accessibility Act. The proposed directive aims, among other things, to harmonise accessibility requirements for products and services, and clarify the definition of the obligation of accessibility, as laid down in EU law.

Later on Monday night, with a view to formally adopting a text agreed with the Council, Members will debate a report on unfair trading practices in the food supply chain, of the sort that frequently pit small farmers against large conglomerates, usually to the former’s disadvantage. Parliament’s Agriculture & Rural Development Committee has succeeded in ensuring that the rules extend to all types of actors, include all agricultural products, and cover an extended list of prohibited unfair trading practices.

On Wednesday night, Members will also return to the debate on safeguarding competition in air transport, where a text agreed in interinstitutional negotiations now requires formal adoption in Parliament. As the original legislation to protect the EU against possible unfair commercial practices in international aviation was ineffective (and never used), the proposed revised regulation seeks to ensure both a high level of connectivity and fair competition with air carriers based outside the EU, allowing the Commission to act if competition is distorted by third country operators.

Following the financial crisis, many citizens and businesses found it difficult to keep up their loan repayments, leading to a large number of non-performing loans on EU bank balance sheets. On Wednesday night, Members will debate a provisional agreement between Parliament, the Commission and the Council to amend the current Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR), so that banks are obliged to ensure they have minimum reserves to cover losses on such loans. The agreement differentiates between secured and unsecured loans, and confirms Parliament’s proposal to reduce possible disincentives for credit purchasers, while also protecting borrowers.

Many EU countries also experienced financial difficulties during the 2008 financial crisis, leading to the creation of the European Stability Mechanism. Proposals to transform this intergovernmental mechanism into a European Monetary Fund are the subject of a debate on Wednesday afternoon. These include changes that would mean decisions on financial support would be taken by reinforced qualified majority (85 % of the votes), instead of unanimity. Pending a decision by Council, where there is marked reluctance on the part of Member States, Parliament’s Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) and Budgets (BUDG) committees have jointly prepared an interim report, the proposal itself being subject to the consent procedure (under which Parliament formally intervenes only at the end to accept or reject Council’s text).

Next year, 2020, is the last in the current multiannual financial framework, and Members will debate a report on Tuesday night on Section III of the proposed guidelines for the 2020 EU budget. Parliament’s Committee on Budgets is calling for an ambitious budgetary commitment prioritising further investments in innovation and research for economic growth, in security, in improving living and working conditions for citizens, and in combating climate change.

On foreign affairs, on Tuesday afternoon Parliament debates the 2018 country report on Turkey, which deals with the country’s EU accession aspirations. Although an EU partner since 1964, the recent military coup and subsequent failure to respect its commitments on human rights have led the Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs to recommend the formal suspension of accession negotiations with Turkey. Nevertheless, the committee’s report also recommends continued dialogue with the country and support for civil society and democratic reform, as well as recognition of Turkey’s role in assisting Syrian refugees. Turning to Afghanistan on Tuesday evening, Parliament will hold a joint debate on whether to give consent to the entry into force of the EU-Afghanistan Cooperation Agreement on Partnership and Development, which seeks to support the Afghan government in peace- and state-building, as well as development and trade. The Agreement provides for political dialogue with the EU, on human rights, as well as the rule of law, health, development and education. It also seeks to put measures in place to halt corruption and organised crime, and to promote nuclear security, in a country that has long suffered from extremism and terrorism.

A list of all material prepared for this Plenary Session: Establishment of the European Monetary Fund (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL) European Accessibility Act (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL) Safeguarding competition in air transport (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL) Unfair trading practices in the food supply chain (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL) Visa Information System (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL) Revising the European Citizens’ Initiative (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL) Turkey: 2018 country report (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL) Setting minimum coverage for potential losses stemming from non-performing loans (NPLs) (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL) ENISA and new EU Cybersecurity Act (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL) European Criminal Records Information System (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL) EU-Afghanistan Cooperation Agreement (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL)

Written by Rosamund Shreeves,
Graphics by Eulalia Claros.

During the events held at the European Parliament this week to mark International Women’s Day on 8 March, a number of speakers referred to the slow progress made towards gender equality in the EU over the past decade. How do we know how much progress has been achieved?

There are now a number of global instruments for measuring gender equality, developed by international organisations including the World Bank, the United Nations, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and other bodies, such as the World Economic Forum (WEF). The World Economic Forum’s 2018 Global gender gap report found that improvements in wage equality and the number of women in professional positions have been offset by the stagnating share of women in the workplace and women’s declining representation in politics, coupled with greater inequality in access to health and education, leaving the global gender gap only slightly reduced. It concludes that, at the current rate of change, the global gender gap will take 108 years to close, whilst reaching economic gender parity remains 202 years away.

The European Union also has its own gender equality index, developed by its European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) and tailored to the EU policy context. The index uses comparable data from Eurostat to measure achievements and gender gaps over time in six core domains (work, money, knowledge, time, power and health), assigning scores for Member States between 1 for total inequality and 100 for full equality. It also measures two additional domains, violence against women and intersecting inequalities, not included in the overall score. The latest report, published in 2017, compared trends between 2005 and 2015, concluding that advances have been made, but at a snail’s pace. It concludes that, overall, the EU and its Member States are still only halfway towards achieving full equality between women and men and that there are significant divergences between countries. Whilst most score relatively well on health and education, this cannot be said of employment, access to economic and financial resources or leadership.

You can view details for individual countries and compare countries on the interactive website. EIGE will issue the next update in October 2019.

In the meantime, the European Commission has just issued its 2019 annual report on equality between women and men in the EU, taking stock of progress made towards the goals set out in its strategic engagement for gender equality for 2016-2019.