European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

Written by Jana Titievskaia and Roderick Harte,

© Rawpixel.com / Fotolia

The European Community was founded on the belief that economic integration leads to peace and economic prosperity. Trade is therefore a fundamental part of the identity of the European Union (EU) today. Given the success of the internal market in fostering the longest period of European peace in modern history, the EU considers itself an example of the benefits of trade, globalisation and economic openness. International trade policy is an exclusive competence of the EU, and with the combined economic weight of its Member States behind it, the EU is one of the key players in global trade. Yet trade policy is about more than stability and growth for the EU, as it is also used to encourage poor countries to develop, foster international alliances and support fundamental values in the world. A strong believer in the World Trade Organization (WTO), the EU backs an international trading system based on rules rather than might.

The benefits of globalisation and international trade have nevertheless been questioned in recent years, including within the EU. This has led it to reinvigorate its trade policy, in particular by presenting a new trade strategy and a reflection paper on harnessing globalisation. The EU’s new ‘trade for all’ strategy addresses criticisms and focuses on making its trade policy more effective, transparent and values-based. In line with this strategy, the EU has pursued ongoing trade negotiations with renewed vigour and launched new trade and investment talks, resulting in state-of-the-art agreements with countries such as Canada and Japan.

The EU faces uncertain times due to major shifts in international trade, coming from both the West and the East. In response, it seeks to promote economic openness, standing up for its values and protecting its interests. For example, the EU has retaliated against US steel tariffs and continues to defend the rules-based international trading order. Contentious trading practices on the part of third countries, including China, have led the EU to modernise its trade defence instruments, prepare a new foreign investment screening mechanism and seek a reform of the WTO. The EU is likely to continue this approach in the next parliamentary term, pursuing international cooperation and new agreements, possibly also at a continental level with Africa, and striving to protect its citizens and businesses from economic harm.

Read this complete briefing on ‘EU policies – Delivering for citizens: International trade and globalisation‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Mar Negreiro and Tambiama Madiega,

© Zapp2Photo / Shutterstock.com

A digital revolution is transforming the world as we know it at unprecedented speed. Digital technologies have changed the way businesses operate, how people connect and exchange information, and how they interact with the public and private sectors. European businesses and citizens alike need an adequate policy framework and appropriate skills and infrastructures to capture the enormous value created by the digital economy and make a success of digital transformation.

The European Union plays an active role in shaping the digital economy, with cross-policy initiatives that range from boosting investment to reforming EU laws, to non-legislative actions to improve Member States’ coordination and exchange of best practices. The 2014-2019 parliamentary term has seen a number of initiatives in the areas of digitalisation of industry and public services, investment in digital infrastructure and services, research programmes, cybersecurity, e-commerce, copyright and data protection legislation.

There is a growing awareness among EU citizens that digital technologies play an important role in their everyday lives. In a 2017 survey, two-thirds of Europeans said that these technologies have a positive impact on society, the economy and their own lives. However, they also bring new challenges. A majority of respondents felt that the EU, Member States’ authorities and companies need to take action to address the impacts of these technologies.

The European Union will increase its support for digital transformation in the coming years, as illustrated by the recent proposal for the Digital Europe programme (for 2021-2027) – which would be the first ever funding programme dedicated solely to supporting digital transformation in the EU. Further EU action will doubtless be needed, notably to increase infrastructure investment, boost innovation, foster digital champions and businesses digitalisation, reduce existing digital divides, remove remaining barriers in the digital single market and ensure an adequate legal and regulatory framework in the areas of advanced computing and data, artificial intelligence, and cybersecurity.

The European Parliament, as co-legislator, is closely involved in shaping the policy framework that will help citizens and businesses fully exploit the potential of digital technologies.

Read this complete briefing on ‘EU policies – Delivering for citizens: Digital transformation‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Irina Popescu,

© didier salou / Fotolia

The European Union has sole responsibility for the conservation of its marine fisheries resources, and manages them under the common fisheries policy (CFP). Launched in 1983 and reformed every ten years since then, the CFP has come a long way. The current framework, resulting from the 2013 CFP reform, is aimed at ensuring that EU fisheries are sustainable – environmentally, economically and socially. The CFP has a dedicated financial instrument – the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) – with a budget of €6.4 billion for the 2014-2020 period.

The 2013 reform introduced the target to achieve exploitation of all stocks at sustainable levels by 2020, and provided several major tools to support progress towards this goal. In particular, adoption of multiannual plans has become a priority, to ensure long-term management of stocks. An obligation to land all catches was designed to end the practice of discarding fish back into the sea. The reform introduced regionalisation of decision-making, with the possibility to adopt conservation measures based on joint recommendations by the Member States concerned.

With implementation of the reformed CFP as the main feature of the 2014-2019 parliamentary term, legislative work has made headway on several important topics. A series of multiannual plans have been launched, and two of them, concerning fisheries in the Baltic Sea and the North Sea, are now in force. The landing obligation has been phased in, as scheduled, from 2015 to 2019. The EU adopted an updated framework for collection of fisheries data to support management decisions, as well as a new system of managing fishing authorisations, and improved monitoring of EU vessels fishing outside EU waters. EU activities have also covered different aspects of the CFP’s external dimension, such as conclusion of fisheries agreements with third countries, and participation in international fisheries governance. In the future, further progress is expected on issues such as adoption of multiannual plans and the revision of the fisheries control system. The EMFF will be renewed as part of the next EU multiannual budget for 2021-2027. Taking stock of progress made in implementing the latest reform and achieving its objectives, with a view to future CFP developments, will also be on the agenda.

Read this complete briefing on ‘EU policies – Delivering for citizens: Fisheries‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Cécile Remeur,

© bankrx / Fotolia

Tax policy, and the fight against tax fraud, have gained particular exposure over the five past years as a result of the light shed by repeated tax leaks and the related journalistic investigations. This has added to the increasing lack of acceptance of damaging tax practices, especially since the recession and the resulting budget constraints. The fight against tax fraud aims at recovering revenue not paid to the public authorities. It also aims at ensuring that fraudsters do not have an advantage over compliant taxpayers, thus ensuring tax fairness between taxpayers. Unpaid taxes result in reduced resources for national and European Union (EU) budgets. Though the scale of unpaid taxes is by nature difficult to estimate, available assessments hint at large amounts of resources lost to public finances.

Citizens’ evaluation of the EU’s current involvement in the fight against tax fraud has improved, but the majority of citizens in each Member State still share expectations for even more intensive involvement. Despite this, there is still a considerable gap between citizens’ evaluations and expectations of EU involvement. There is still room for improvement in addressing the preferences and expectations of EU citizens.

The fight against tax fraud is shared between Member States and the EU. Coming under tax policy, it has remained closely linked to Member State sovereignty, protected by the requirement for unanimity and a special legislative procedure which keeps tax matters firmly under the Council’s control. This has been the case since the Union’s beginnings, in spite of the proposed limited changes to the tax framework. As shortcomings have been more clearly identified, the discussion has been opened anew in the latest speeches on the State of the Union delivered by the President of the European Commission before the European Parliament.

Fighting tax fraud covers not only actions against illegal behaviour, but also the deterrence of fraud and measures to foster compliance. As a result it involves a large reboot of tax provisions, to upgrade them for the scale and features of tax fraud as it is and as it evolves. Yet in spite of the notable deliveries during the current parliamentary term, there remains work ahead, namely because all provisions need to be implemented, enforced, monitored and, if need be, updated, to keep up with the versatility of tax fraud, as well as the need to keep pace with digital evolution globally.

Read this complete briefing on ‘EU policies – Delivering for citizens: The fight against tax fraud‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Christian Scheinert (1st edition),

© Goodpics / Fotolia

The European Commission’s proposal for transforming the intergovernmental European Stability Mechanism (ESM) into a European monetary fund (EMF) under EU law would provide it with wide-ranging tasks. The ESM was created at the height of the European sovereign debt crisis in order to provide financial assistance for governments that had lost, or were about to lose, access to financial markets. It was established outside the Community framework by an intergovernmental treaty and is a permanent rescue mechanism aimed at safeguarding the financial stability of the euro area. The proposal met with considerable opposition at Council level, as the Council wishes to maintain the ESM’s intergovernmental character, and would expand its remit only slightly. The European Parliament, whose legislative powers are limited within the consent procedure, will vote on an interim report in plenary.

Versions

• March 2019: ‘Establishment of a European monetary fund (EMF)‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of a European Monetary Fund Committees responsible: Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) and Budgets (BUDG) (jointly under Rule 55) COM(2017) 827 of 6.12.2017 Rapporteurs: Vladimír Maňka (S&D, Slovakia)
Pedro Silva Pereira (S&D, Portugal) 2017/0333(APP) Shadow rapporteurs: Siegfried Muresan (EPP, Romania)
Tom Vandenkendelaere (EPP, Belgium)
Jean Arthuis (ALDE, France)
Wolf Klinz (ALDE, Germany)
Bernd Kölmel (ECR, Germany)
Sven Giegold (Greens/EFA, Germany)
Dimitros Papadimoulis (GUE/NDL, Greece)
Liadh Ní Riada (GUE/NDL, Ireland)
Jörg Meuthen (EFDD, Germany)
Marco Valli (EFDD, Italy)
Barbara Kappel (ENF, Austria) Consent procedure (APP) Next steps expected: Vote in plenary on an interim report.

Written by Rosamund Shreeves.

Women have your say…

With the 2019 European elections fast approaching, the European Parliament’s Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (FEMM) is focusing its International Women’s Day event on the theme of women in politics, highlighting the contribution women have already made and urging more women to get involved, both as voters and as candidates. The Parliament is not alone. Women’s organisations, including Europe’s largest umbrella organisation, the European Women’s Lobby (EWL), and the more recently established European Women Alliance (EWA) want to see a higher turnout among women voters in the 2019 elections. They are also calling both for better gender balance in the next Parliament and top-level jobs in the EU institutions and for a new impetus for gender equality at EU level and the funding to support it.

State of play

Women in national parliaments compared with the European Parliament

Not least due to activism by women and their allies, the political landscape now looks far more balanced than it did exactly a century ago when women in several EU countries (Luxembourg, the Netherlands), first won the vote in national elections, got elected to the national parliament (Luxembourg, Austria), or held a ministerial position (Ireland).  At the time of writing, three EU Member States (Germany, Romania and the UK) have women prime ministers, who are likely to be joined shortly by a fourth in Estonia. EU-wide data on equality between women and men in decision-making shows that governments in Spain, Sweden and France are at gender parity. However, at the other end of the spectrum, governments in Hungary and Malta have only 7.1% and 12% of women respectively. Men outnumber women in every EU Member State’s national parliament, sometimes by a wide margin and the same goes for regional assemblies. When it comes to the European Parliament, the share of female MEPs currently stands at 36.1%, having risen steadily after each election from a low 16.6 % in the first directly elected legislature in 1979. This is above the world average for national parliaments and the EU average for national parliaments, which stands at 30.2%.  However, it is still some way from the parity democracy, which Simone Veil and nineteen other women leaders called for in 1992 at the “European Summit of Women in Power”, which first put the issue on the EU agenda. Its five key arguments for equal representation—equality, democracy, satisfying the needs and interests of women, good use of human resources, and improving the policymaking process—still resonate today.

We need more women leaders because…  The Women Political Leaders network is encouraging prominent male politicians, including the current and former presidents of the European Commission and EU Member States, to say why more women are needed in parliaments and as political leaders.

An obstacle-strewn path to political office

Analysis of the outcome of the 2014 European elections found that women were popular with the electorate. According to the 2017 Special Eurobarometer survey on women in politics, 86 % of respondents think that a female political representative can represent their interests. So why are women still under-represented?

The European Women’s Lobby boils the considerable research down to 5 key factors:  Confidence: women – for a variety of highly rational reasons – have more doubts putting themselves up for election; Candidate selection: once women agree to run, it’s often difficult for them to get an electable spot on the election list; Culture: politics is a men’s world. Sexism is rampant and external threats – women – are often not welcome; Cash: when women run for election, their campaigns often receive less funding than their male counterparts); Childcare: across the EU, women spend double the amount of time on childcare compared to men.

Women in EP and national parliaments

A survey of women’s experiences of selection and election in the UK gives a striking illustration of the cumulative impact these obstacles can have on the journey to political office and beyond, including some of the  additional or specific barriers different groups of women can face on account of their age, class, ethnic background, religion, disability, or sexual orientation:

• Deciding whether to stand for office: Respondents of both sexes had a long-standing interest in politics, but women were less likely to see themselves as future MPs because they thought that they did not ‘fit’ the traditional image or felt actively discouraged from going forward for selection by party officials or culture (being talked over, feeling invisible). As party activists, some women found that the timing and location of meetings did not take account of parenting responsibilities or mobility issues, creating further obstacles to being active in the party and therefore to building the necessary credibility, experience and networks to consider standing for office.
• Getting selected as a candidate: In practice, the existing selection process was far from neutral or meritocratic. The time and financial costs involved were a major barrier for many women, especially those from lower socio-economic groups and particularly when employers were not flexible or supportive. Reconciling standing as a candidate and building political capital on top of family commitments and fulltime work was more of an impediment for women than for their male counterparts. Unequal access to resources was compounded by the attitudes and practices of party ‘selectorates’, whose patronage systems and informal selection criteria (e.g. prioritising particular career trajectories or histories of party activism) indirectly advantaged men during the selection process. Across the political spectrum, women respondents also reported more overt forms of bias in political parties, from a preconceived view of the ‘ideal’ candidate as male (and also white, middle class and able bodied), to assumptions about women’s and men’s abilities and roles (women but not men being asked about their marital status or children), and active resistance to selecting a female candidate. This could take the form of resentment and hostility within the local party towards equality measures, or outright opposition, harassment and threats of violence to women candidates from party members, the public and the media.
• Getting elected: The issue of parties not selecting women candidates in ‘target’ or ‘winnable’ seats was a barrier to their electoral success. (Here, the equivalent in PR systems would be placing on a party list). Issues around resources, particularly money, time and flexibility, were even more important at this stage. Not being selected in a ‘target’ or ‘winnable’ seat could also lead to women candidates missing out on additional electoral support and resources from their parties. Respondents felt that in some more socially conservative areas the electorate were reluctant to vote for candidates from minority groups.
• Taking office: Once elected, aspects of political life continued to present challenges. Parliament’s long and unsociable working hours, late-night voting, the requirement to be present for votes, commuting between two places and expectations that MPs should be available to constituents around the clock were all issues for female respondents, as was the level of abuse and harassment they face.

Concerns about managing the lifestyle of an MP and the sheer extent of violence directed against women in politics and public life, particularly on social media, may be deterring women from engaging in politics because they find the environment too toxic.

Getting more women into office

Against this background, what can be done to support women in politics? Here again, the European Women’s Lobby has five take-aways from the research:
Confidence: Invest in women. Set up ambitious training and mentoring programs;
Candidate selection: Establish quota or zipping systems in order to ensure gender balanced lists. Headhunt women candidates;
Culture: Establish zero tolerance for sexism with clear channels for reporting sexual harassment;
Cash: Provide earmarked funding for women candidates until equal representation is reached;
Childcare: Change the “long hours” culture in politics. Provide childcare facilities.

Looking specifically to the 2019 European elections, research for Parliament’s FEMM Committee stresses that political parties play a particularly key role in promoting candidates and, with the lists still open, urges them to consider lists that will improve gender balance in the next Parliament.  The Parliament itself has urged Member States and political parties to promote gender-balanced electoral lists and would have liked to see this enshrined in the reformed European Electoral Act.

Parliament’s Vice-President, Mairead McGuiness has spoken about her own experiences, noting that she had previously rejected the idea of introducing gender quotas, but has now come to support them as one way of challenging women’s invisibility in the political sphere, together with other ways of supporting women coming up through the ranks, at the grassroots and in local politics, or women entering politics at a later stage in their careers. Quotas are not about numeric 50/50 parity, but about creating the kind of political system that allows both men and women to participate and giving the electorate real choices about who will represent them.

Getting more women into office – less talk, more action

Interview: Empowering Women in Politics, Mairead McGuinness, Interview with the EP vice-president

What about the role of the media?

As researcher Maarja Lühiste explains, more and better media coverage would also shape future opportunities, by influencing women’s decisions to run for office, political party candidate choices, and young people’s perceptions of politics as a suitable career for women.

Interview: Empowering Women in Politics, Maarja Lühiste

Further reading

For International Women’s Day, EPRS has published several briefings, included in our Topical Digest on Women and Politics.

• Women in politics in the EU: State of play, Briefing by Rosamund Shreeves and Martina Prpic, with Eulalia Claros, February 2019
• Women in parliaments, Infographic by Martina Prpic, Giulio Sabbati and Samy Chahri, February 2019
• Women in regional and local government,‘At a glance’ note by Vasileios Margaras, March 2019 (to be published soon)
  
• Women in politics: a global perspective, Briefing by Joanna Apap, Eulalia Claros and Ionel Zamfir, February 2019
• The place of women in European film productions: Fighting the celluloid ceiling, Briefing by Ivana Katsarova, January 2019

This publication is meant as a background document to support the debate that will take place during the workshop ‘Farming without plant protection products?’, 6 March 2019, which contrasts the contents of this report with perspectives from conventional agriculture, the stance of organic farmers and the viewpoint of consumers.

Can we grow without using herbicides, fungicides and insecticides?

©pcfruit

Food security and healthy food for 11 billion people by 2100 is one of the biggest challenges of this century. It is one of the most important, if not the most important, human rights, and any agricultural system has to fulfil this requirement within the planetary sustainability boundaries. This implies that no further land increase for agriculture is acceptable, since this is the most important driver for biodiversity loss, greenhouse gas increase and environmental impact. According to scientific literature, there is no other option than to increase the global yield efficiency and reduce the yield gap to guarantee global food security. As such, one can ask the question if it is possible to maintain current yields in north-west Europe and increase yields in other regions of the world without plant protection products (PPPs) or with reduced PPP use. But how can we deal with the public perception that PPPs are unhealthy, with very negative impacts on biodiversity and environment?

PPPs include herbicides, fungicides and insecticides. PPPs can be synthetic PPPs or natural PPPs (‘biopesticides’), used in organic agriculture. The amount of PPPs used has doubled since 1980 but the development of new conventional (synthetic) PPPs has decreased, partly because of legislation issues, while the number of biopesticides has increased in the last decades. The increased use of PPPs was one of the drivers of the ‘green revolution’, and contributed to the 2.5-times increase of crop yields in developed countries. Looking at the EU countries, there are considerable differences in PPP use and this correlates with differences in crop yield. The shift from broadly acting PPPs to more specific PPPs, that only target specific pests or diseases and avoid impact on non-target organisms, implies that farmers have to spray more with these specific acting PPPs. This is the most important reason for the recent increase in PPP use, without the positive effect on crop yield increase of the past.

The introduction of PPPs in the EU is very strictly regulated and involves a long procedure, including a science-based risk assessment. This includes an evaluation of the toxic effects on humans and other organisms. PPPs are today, when applied properly, much safer than in the past and there is a strict control on residues. A safety factor of 100 ensures a much lower risk level than other daily risks to which humans are exposed. Also the application technology of PPPs has improved considerably, which contributes to lower impacts on the environment and risks for applicants. Risk assessment costs for the crop protection industry per active substance increased from US$41 million in 1995 to US$71 million nowadays.

Crop protection not only entails the use of PPPs but also other alternative measures, such as crop rotation, the implementation of resistant cultivars (not at all or less available in many crops), soil management and others. Without PPPs, yields will be reduced, depending on the crop, and reductions of between 19 % (wheat) and 42 % (potato) have been reported. These reductions are higher in regions with high actual production, the latter also as a result of the input of fertilizers, high-yielding varieties, irrigation, etc. Without PPPs, including biopesticides, the food security of 11 billion people in the future is threatened. On the other hand, it is still an open question whether it is possible to reduce the use of PPPs without yield reduction. There are several indications that, for specific crops, a reduction in PPP use is feasible. The general tendency is that a reduction seems possible in the case of (very) high actual PPP use, but not in the case of low use.

PPPs still have unwanted and unavoidable side effects, such as their negative impact on biodiversity. However, this correlation is not always well-studied and it seems that the most important effect on biodiversity (loss) is due to land use changes. In this respect it is clear that organic farming, and its implementation in agro-ecology, is often not the best choice. At farm level, all scientific meta-studies indicate that the increase in biodiversity is rather marginal, but that, at global level, there will be a drastic decrease in biodiversity, since organic farming is approximately 25 % less productive than conventional farming. This implies that, to feed 11 billion people, more land is needed at the expense of biodiversity. Moreover, the perception that natural PPPs, used in organic farming, are less toxic and lead to less residues is not always correct and needs further scientific confirmation.

Although there has been a lot of progress in the past concerning the impact of PPPs on humans and environment, considerable improvements are still possible. Reduction of PPP use seems one way, e.g. based on sophisticated warning and decision support systems, but such reduction is only realistic when the risk of yield or food quality reduction is acceptable for the farmer. Precision farming, including remote sensing with unmanned aerial vehicles, can also contribute to more targeted application and reduction of PPP use. An important contribution will also come from the breeding of more resistant varieties, both by classical breeding and by new breeding techniques, such as precision mutation breeding using the CRISPR-Cas approach or by genetic transformation. The latter techniques will be unavoidable to reach the SDGs concerning food security, and healthy foods with respect to the planetary sustainability boundaries.

Read the complete In-depth Analysis on ‘Farming without plant protection products‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by François Théron,

© MoiraM / Fotolia

The European Day of Remembrance of Victims of Terrorism has been established as 11 March each year, marking the Madrid bombings in 2004. The protection of victims of terrorism constitutes an essential part of the EU’s action to address all dimensions of the terrorist threat. Following the wave of terror that has hit Europe in recent years, rules and sanctions related to terrorist activities have been strengthened, while better protection and support to victims of terrorism is being ensured through action at EU level.

Background

Since 2002, the EU has developed the basis for European legislation aimed specifically at combating terrorism, recognising that victims of terrorist offences are vulnerable and therefore specific measures are necessary to protect them. The European Union’s 2005 Counter-Terrorism Strategy underlines that solidarity, assistance and compensation of victims of terrorism and their families constitute an integral part of the response to terrorism, at both national and European levels. In 2010, the Stockholm Programme called for examination of how EU legislation for the protection of victims of crime, in particular victims of terrorism, could be improved. To this end, an integrated and coordinated approach has been developed, through the April 2015 European Agenda on Security, which sets out a comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy that further enhances the protection of victims, regardless of where in the EU a terrorist attack has taken place.

Legal framework

Victims of intentional and violent crime have the right to access national compensation schemes under the April 2004 Council Directive (2004/80/EC) relating to compensation to crime victims. As terrorist attacks qualify as such intentional and violent crime, victims can trigger the application of the EU-wide compensation scheme in situations where the attack was committed in an EU country other than the victim’s country of residence.

The October 2012 Directive (2012/29/EU) on victim’s rights recognises that victims of terrorism may need special attention due to the particular nature of the crime they had to face. A victim of terrorism is a natural person who has suffered harm, including physical, mental and emotional harm or economic loss, insofar as that was directly caused by a terrorist offence, or a family member of a person whose death was directly caused by a terrorist offence and who has suffered harm as a result of that person’s death. Member States should therefore take particular account of their needs by protecting their dignity and security.

Directive (EU) 2017/541 from March 2017 on combating terrorism introduces measures of protection and assistance for victims, such as the right to immediate access to medical and psychological support and information on any legal, practical or financial matters. The directive strengthens the emergency response mechanisms to assist victims of terrorism, immediately after a terrorist attack and for as long as necessary. In particular, EU Member States must ensure that victims of terrorism who are residents of an EU country other than that in which the terrorist offence was committed have full access to support services and compensation schemes available in the country.

Co-legislators’ positions Council of the European Union

In its conclusions on victims of terrorism of May 2018, the Council encourages cooperation between the authorities in charge of protecting the victims of terrorism, in order to facilitate the rapid exchange of information and assistance in the event of a terrorist attack. To meet this objective, the Council invites the EU Member States to nominate contact points at national level in order to share information and build synergies with existing EU structures, such as the European Network on Victims’ Rights, the European Judicial Network (EJN), Eurojust, Europol and crisis management networks.

European Parliament

In May 2018, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the implementation of Directive 2012/29/EU, it emphasised the specific nature of the victims of terrorism, who fall into a distinct category of victims and have specific needs. It called on the European Commission to propose a specific directive on the protection of victims of terrorism. It also encouraged the Member States to provide adequate information and free legal aid to those victims who are also parties to criminal proceedings, in order that they may obtain applicable compensation. European Parliament

Figures on terrorist attacks and victims

According to Europol, in recent years there has been an increase in the frequency of jihadist attacks, but a decrease in the sophistication of their preparation and execution. In 2017 alone, a total of 205 foiled, failed and completed terrorist attacks were reported in nine EU Member States. In 2017, a total of 1 219 individuals were arrested in the EU for terrorism related offences.

The number of victims in the EU, and Europeans killed by terrorist actions in the rest of the world, amounts to 1 790 victims in the 2000-2017 period. Fifteen European countries have been directly hit by attacks, with a total of 740 people dead. Spain, with 269 deaths, is the country with the most victims, followed by France with 254. The United Kingdom (120), Belgium (36) and Germany (29) come next. Furthermore, 26 other countries have witnessed the death of 1 050 Europeans within their territories.

Likewise, the Special Committee on Terrorism (TERR), established in 2017, called on the Commission, in its November 2018 final report, to put forward a legislative proposal on the victims of terrorism that effectively tackles victims’ needs in the short and long term, including a common definition for the status of ‘victim of terrorism’. In its resolution of 12 December 2018 on the findings and recommendations of the TERR committee, the European Parliament requested the Commission to launch a dialogue with the Member States in order to reduce the large disparities existing in the level of financial compensation granted at national level to victims of terrorist attacks. Moreover, it urged Member States to effectively transpose the provisions set out in Directive 2012/29/EU on victims’ rights and Directive (EU) 2017/541 on combating terrorism. Finally, both the Council and the Parliament have repeatedly called on the Commission to establish an EU Coordination Centre for victims of terrorism (CCVT), which would be a hub of expertise, guidance and support in cases of attacks in a Member State. In March 2018, the Commission committed to have the centre ‘up and running in 2019’.

Among proposals to improve the situation of victims of terrorism, the European Parliament has called on the Member States to:

• Provide specific training for professionals of all relevant national services responsible for assisting the victims of terrorist acts.
• Create coordinated mechanisms for collecting information on the victims of terrorist attacks taking place in their territory, to provide assistance in line with their specific needs.
• Establish a web portal and emergency telephone line at national level, giving access to confidential, free-of-charge and easily accessible support services.
• Establish a coordination centre in the event of a terrorist attack, which includes services such as specialist emotional support, vocational rehabilitation to help victims to find new jobs or change careers, and the facilitation of safe virtual connections with other victims.
• Complement the assistance provided to victims with measures such as cash advances to help cover immediate expenses, childcare and home support, tax relief schemes and aid with transport in the case of disability.
• Hold conferences, and establish memorials and audiovisual material in order to raise awareness among EU citizens.

The Commission has established a European Network of Associations of Victims of Terrorism (NAVT) aimed at fostering cross-border cooperation between associations of victims of terrorist attacks in the Member States, and enhancing the defence of victims’ rights at European level. Among their activities, they identify best practices and share information on the mapping of associations supporting victims of terrorism, funding opportunities as well as maintaining a calendar of relevant events.

Read the complete ‘at a glance’ note on ‘Victims of terrorism‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© Николай Григорьев / Fotolia

The situation in Venezuela appears to be approaching a tipping-point, as President Nicolas Maduro faces growing international and domestic pressure to relinquish power to National Assembly leader and self-proclaimed acting President Juan Guaidó. The latter is recognised by many Western countries as the legitimate interim leader of the oil-rich Latin American country, which has seen its economy undermined by mismanagement and corruption. Maduro, political heir to Hugo Chávez, is backed by China, Russia and the country’s military. He has recently ordered troops to block the opposition’s US-backed attempt to bring in aid to the country, leading to violent clashes. To date, some 3.4 million Venezuelans have left the country to escape the crisis.

The European Parliament has already adopted a non-binding resolution that recognised Juan Guaidó as the legitimate interim President of Venezuela.

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

Europe should do better on Venezuela
European Council on Foreign Relations, February 2019

Venezuela’s Maidan moment, and why realpolitik is against the interest of the West
Wilfried Martens Centre, February 2019

Russian mercenaries on the march: Next stop Venezuela?
European Council on Foreign Relations, February 2019

Amid political uncertainties, Venezuela’s oil industry situation worsens
Council on Foreign Relations, February 2019

Negotiating Venezuela’s future: First agreement, then elections
Finnish Institute of International Affairs, February 2019

Beginning the endgame in Venezuela
Center for Strategic and International Studies, February 2019

Maduro’s allies: Who backs the Venezuelan regime?
Council on Foreign Relations, February 2019

Venezuela’s Crisis: Italy Clashes with the EU common approach
Istituto Affari Internazionali, February 2019

Putin in Caracas
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, February 2019

China-Venezuela economic relations: Hedging Venezuelan bets with Chinese characteristics
Wilson Center, February 2019

What we heard in Caracas
International Crisis Group, February 2019

Trump is getting it right on Venezuela. In fact, he needs to double down
American Enterprise Institute, February 2019

In Venezuela, Maduro and Guaidó are on a collision course over humanitarian aid
Atlantic Council, February 2019

A Venezuelan refugee crisis
Council on Foreign Relations, February 2019

Why did China stand by Maduro in Venezuela?
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, February 2019

What comes next for Venezuela’s oil industry?
Center for Strategic and International Studies, February 2019

Russian-Venezuelan relations at a crossroads
Wilson Center, February 2019

Venezuela: A rough road ahead
International Crisis Group, January 2019

Venezuela: The rise and fall of a petrostate
Council on Foreign Relations, January 2019

In Venezuela, a potential U.S.-Russian crisis?
Rand Corporation, January 2019

¿Por qué Nicolás Maduro sigue en el poder pese al colapso de Venezuela?
Barcelona Centre for International Affairs, January 2019

Creativity amid crisis: Legal pathways for Venezuelan migrants in Latin America
Migration Policy Institute, January 2019

The top conflicts to watch in 2019: Venezuela
Council on Foreign Relations, January 2019

Venezuelans must lead in building an off-ramp for Maduro
Brookings Institution, January 2019

Amérique latine: L’année politique 2018
Centre d’études et de recherches internationales, Observatoire politique de l’amérique latine et des Caraïbes, January 2018

How many more migrants and refugees can we expect out of Venezuela?
Brookings Institution, December 2018

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

Written by Eamonn Noonan with Henry Eviston,

ESPAS 2018: Foresight: Thinking about tomorrow today

As is customary, EPRS hosted the second day of the annual ESPAS conference, which took place in late November (the video proceedings are available online). ESPAS is the European Strategy and Policy Analysis System, and this event has become the major interinstitutional foresight set piece of the year in Brussels. The event aims to promote cooperation between European bodies, working towards a common analysis of major global trends, and of the choices and challenges they pose for Europe.

The afternoon opened with a session on Global Power in 2030. Shada Islam, Director of Friends of Europe, sees that it is increasingly difficult to generate international consensus on most important issues, and suggests that a model based on ‘constellations’ could help: multilateral agreements in policy areas such as climate change, security cooperation or development initiatives, each bringing together different sets of countries.

ESPAS 2018: Interview with Nicolas MIAILHE

Dr Bérénice Guyot-Rechard added that the EU must increase its visibility in South and South-Eastern Asia. The EU should seek mutually beneficial cooperation with India on joint priorities such as climate change and sustainable urbanisation. Nicholas Miailhe, President of the Future Society, noted that the EU does not lack the ability to innovate, but rather the business models needed to develop innovation, in contrast to the United States. He argued for a focus on European technological ‘champions’.

A specialist panel on foresight, ‘Thinking About Today Tomorrow’ asked how foresight can be better understood by politicians and the public. Mathew Burrows, of the Atlantic Council, argued that history is an effective tool to make the future relevant. Where leaders see concrete examples from the past, they are more likely to listen to arguments about the unintended consequences of their policies. This can help change how people think – a central objective of foresight. Florence Gaub, deputy director of the EUISS, sees the psychology of foresight as more of an art than a science. Inbuilt emotional traps make it difficult to think clearly about the future. Foresight practitioners are there to ‘annoy’ those decision-makers who think only of the short-term. Policy-makers should aim to be trusted, rather than liked.

ESPAS 2018: Global power in 2030, Catarina TULLY

Catarina Tully, founder of the School of International Futures, added that there is now an effort to teach foresight in schools; as it needs to become a natural part of people’s thinking. Pei Shan Lim added that her Centre for Strategic Futures engages constantly with every level of the Singaporean government. New teaching techniques, such as gaming, are a key part of the effort to embed foresight in officials’ thinking.

Franck Debié, Deputy Head of Cabinet of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament, led the penultimate session and traced the evolution of ESPAS. He highlighted how much has been achieved since 2014, in terms of both institutional cooperation and policy output. The concluding panel included Klaus Welle, Secretary-General of the European Parliament, Ann Mettler, Head of the European Political Strategy Centre, and others. It summed up several themes emerging from the two days: the importance of honest advice, of emotional engagement, of values, and of realism; and the ability to review, test and update positions as necessary.

Our first blog post covering the ESPAS conference’s morning proceedings.

Videos of the Conference discussions.

Interviews with our speakers and participants.

Photos from the event

See more photos on the conference website.

Click to view slideshow.

 

Written by Eamonn Noonan with Henry Eviston,

ESPAS 2018: Welcoming remarks, Ann Mettler & Anthony Teasdale

As is customary, EPRS hosted the second day of the annual ESPAS conference, which took place in late November (the video proceedings are available online). ESPAS is the European Strategy and Policy Analysis System, and this event has become the major interinstitutional foresight set piece of the year in Brussels. The event aims to promote cooperation between European bodies, working towards a common analysis of major global trends, and of the choices and challenges they pose for Europe.

Parliament Vice-President Ramón Luis Valcárcel Siso gave the opening address, following welcoming remarks from EPRS Director-General, Anthony Teasdale, and the Head of the European Policy Strategy Centre, Ann Mettler. The Vice-President reminded guests that the EU stands at a critical juncture. While it prepares for the 2019 elections – ‘one of the world’s largest democratic exercises’ – the EU faces a crisis of confidence from citizens who ‘have felt abandoned’ over the last ten years. ‘This is no time for humility’, therefore – it is fundamental the Parliament remind citizens how it has taken their side.

ESPAS 2018: Keynote Discussion, Professor (Lord) Martin Rees

Lord Martin Rees, UK Astronomer Royal, delivered a keynote speech on ‘Global Governance in the Anthropocene Age’. Lord Rees underlined that we can predict two things for this century: the world will become warmer, and that it will become more crowded. We human beings are not addressing climate change and, therefore, are ‘destroying the book of life before we’ve read it’. Having charted the potential of new technologies, space exploration and life extension to improve humans’ knowledge and wellbeing, Lord Rees concluded by exhorting academics and citizens to put pressure on elected representatives to think globally and to consider the long-term.

The next session dealt with Economy and Society in 2030. The discussion ranged from the EU’s influence as a trendsetter, to the importance of foresight in the EU’s investment strategy. Heather Grabbe of the Open Society European Policy Institute argued that the EU’s scale and its intellectual capacity would help it remain a public policy leader. Bruce Stokes of the Pew Research Center emphasised that the EU must speak to the significant minority that votes for populist parties and is resistant to change – such as that which may emerge from the rise of automation. For Mikolaj Dowgielewicz of the EIB, the EU’s investments must become much more future-focused: the EU lacks investment in innovation, infrastructure, and R&D, particularly compared to Asia. Finally, Daniel Gros of CEPS added that the EU must become qualitatively better if it is to remain a trendsetter.

ESPAS 2018: Keynote discussion, Professor Brigid Laffan

The morning session concluded with a second keynote speech by the European University Institute’s Brigid Laffan on ‘The Future of Social Sciences and their Contribution to Policy-Making’. Brigid Laffan argued that the future of the social sciences lies in three functions: supporting evidence-based policy-making; transforming knowledge and knowledge production; and transforming politics. The tension between politics needing solutions urgently, while science is about careful research and contested knowledge, complicates this first function. The IT-related transformation of knowledge production will create new fields for empirical study, such as parliamentary debates, where the social sciences are well placed to ask difficult questions. Finally, social sciences must compensate for the current lack of good governance.

Our second blog post covering the ESPAS conference’s afternoon proceedings.

Videos of the Conference discussions.

Interviews with our speakers and participants.

Photos from the event

See more photos on the conference website.

Click to view slideshow.

 

Written by Silvia Polidori,

Old-model industries, such as the coal and steel, may well represent a symbol of the first steps towards European integration. This workshop aims to show how a more eco and social-friendly approach to reconverting old-style industry in urban areas might trigger a new development path in the European Union.

Today, our economy and lifestyles are becoming more circular and environmental friendly. This brings with it an industrial reconversion trend, driven by new business models, often based on new technologies, such as digital . How can old industrial areas in or close to towns be sympathetically converted into innovative and eco-friendly zones? How can we make these areas attractive hubs for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) operating in the sustainable management of natural resources, modern energy solutions, and eco-efficient transport? And how is this incorporated in the EU’s current and next regional development strategy?

Fifteen experts from twelve EU Member States, including five Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), representatives of other European institutions, universities and local authorities, will gather to discuss the topic from various angles, highlighting the challenges, and proposing solutions based on policy strategies, legislative proposals and concrete examples.

As mentioned in an EPRS Briefing on ‘Harnessing globalisation for local and regional authorities – Challenges and possible solutions‘, global competition has affected various EU industries (e.g. coal, steel, iron, shipbuilding, automotive and textiles), to an extent that they have had to downsize their activities. Other challenges are also inherent to the topic of industrial transformation, such as the economic impact on urban areas where industry is located. For instance, SMEs may depend on those big industries, and demographic and employment issues are also involved. The long and expensive road to soil reclamation and general decontamination of the affected areas represents another challenge, addressing the environment. Adequate strategies need to be tailored to the specific EU areas, as not all EU urban regions have the same needs. In its ‘Reflection paper on harnessing globalisation’, presented in July 2017 as part of a series of papers on the future of Europe, the European Commission calls for a holistic approach to facing globalisation that also empowers local and regional authorities to successfully address the related challenges.

In its 2016 Resolution 2015/2278(INI) on ‘Cohesion policy and Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation’ (rapporteur: Ramón Luis Valcárcel Siso, EPP, Spain), the European Parliament shaped the current EU strategy and legislative framework 2014-2020, based on smart specialisation strategies. These support each region’s existing capabilities and combine them with the activities of local industries. According to a Parliament study, European cohesion policy has contributed to the rehabilitation and new development of industrial areas. A STOA Study on ‘New technologies and regional policy: Towards the next cohesion policy framework’ also provides policy options for the legislator, in view of the adoption of the next regional policy legislation for the 2021-2027 period. In particular, it highlights the role and potential of cohesion policy funding in planning and implementing urban innovation areas. A new generation of science parks can be developed in urban areas, thereby stimulating a wider constituency of entrepreneurs and businesses to innovate and grow.

On 29 May 2018, the European Commission published a ‘proposal for a regulation on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund (CF)’. The new cohesion policy is expected to focus on five policy objectives, including a Europe closer to citizens, with the support of locally-led development strategies and sustainable urban development. One of the key investment priorities is industrial modernisation. There is also a shift towards investments that promote a low-carbon, circular economy and the fight against climate change. Fighting exclusion and supporting the migrant integration are also high on the agenda. As many of these challenges will be tackled in Europe’s cities and metropolitan areas, the European Commission proposes further strengthening of the urban dimension of cohesion policy. Parliament’s Committee on Regional Development (REGI) adopted the ERDF-CF report in the form of amendments to the Commission’s proposal on 14 February 2019. Among the various points raised, the REGI Committee reiterated its support for sustainable urban development, smart specialisation and for a transition to industry 4.0. The next stage in the Parliament will be to table this report for vote in plenary.

Besides the strategic and legislative framework, representatives from six European towns will present some of the most prominent European cases of mastering industrial and economic reconversion.

Follow the workshop online and join the debate via Twitter: #IndustrialReconversion

To keep up to date with this project and other STOA activities, follow our website, the EPRS blog, Twitter and Think Tank pages.

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© Negro Elkha / Fotolia

The United States has announced its withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, sparking fears of a fresh nuclear arms race between Russia, the United States and China. The collapse of the 1987 agreement, which bans land-based missiles with a range between 500 kilometres and 5,500 kilometres, has further exacerbated existing concerns about European security caused by the uncertain commitment of US President Donald Trump to the NATO military alliance.

President Trump’s approach to security, coupled with Russia’s assertive behaviour, have prompted the European Union to put forward initiatives to increase its military capabilities. President Trump started a six-month withdrawal process from the Treaty this month, blaming it on Russian violations. Hopes are not high that an agreement can be negotiated during this period. Furthermore, German Chancellor Angela Merkel called on China to join the INF treaty during the 2019 Munich Security Conferece, but China has argued that this would place unfair limits on their military, and refused.

This note offers links to commentaries and studies on the collapse of the INF Treaty and European defence. Earlier papers on defence can be found in a previous edition of ‘What Think Tanks are Thinking’, published in July 2018.

The INF treaty

The end of an era? The INF Treaty, New START, and the future of strategic stability
Brookings Institutions, February 2019

Europe and the end of the INF Treaty
Carnegie Europe, February 2019

Q&A on the US withdrawal from the INF Treaty
American Enterprise Institute, February 2019

The end of the INF Treaty is looming: A new nuclear arms race can still be prevented
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, January 2019

The INF quandary: Preventing a nuclear arms race in Europe. Perspectives from the US, Russia and Germany
Belfer Centre for Science and International Affairs, January 2019

The ailing INF Treaty: What to know
Council on Foreign Relations, January 2019

The demise of the INF treaty: Can the EU save arms control?
Clingendael, January 2019

Der INF-Vertrag vor dem Aus – Bedrohung oder Chance für die internationale Rüstungskontrolle?
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, December 2018

What comes after a U.S. withdrawal from the INF Treaty? The case for a NATO strategy
Center for Strategic and International Studies, February 2019

Will Europe try to save the INF Treaty?
Brookings Institution, December 2018

Dead man walking: Time to put the INF treaty to rest?
International Centre for Defence and Security, November 2018

Terminating the INF Treaty makes no sense
Cato Institute, October 2018

The crumbling architecture of arms control
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, October 2018

Other reports on European defence

Europe in 2019: A critical and transitional year
Center for Strategic and International Studies, February 2019

The way towards the European Defence Union
European Political Strategy Centre, February 2019

Strategische Autonomie Europas
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, February 2019

Misplaced nostalgia for the old West
Carnegie Europe, February 2019

NATO at seventy: An alliance in crisis
Belfer Centre for Science and International Affairs, February 2019

The European blame game
Carnegie Europe, February 2019

Blaming Trump for their problems is the one thing Europeans can agree on
Brookings Institutions, February 2019

Poland’s short-sighted military dependence on the United States
Carnegie Europe, February 2019

America the mercenary: Trump’s plan to bill NATO
European Council on Foreign Relations, February 2019

On the up: Western defence spending in 2018
International Institute for Strategic Studies, February 2019

Pourquoi nous faut-il une armée européenne?
Une armée européenne pour faire quoi?
Une armée européenne dans quel cadre?
Une armée européenne avec qui ?
Une armée européenne sous quelle forme?
Groupe de Recherche et d’information sur la Paix et la Sécurité, January, February 2019

Fighting for Europe: European strategic autonomy and the use of force
Egmont, January 2019

The Franco-German tandem: Bridging the gap on nuclear issues
Institut Français des Relations Internationales, January 2019

1919-2019: How to make peace last? European strategy and the future of the world order
Egmont, January 2019

Contemporary deterrence: Insights and lessons from enhanced forward presence
International Centre for Defence and Security, January 2019

Eyes tight shut: European attitudes towards nuclear deterrence
European Council on Foreign Relations, December 2018

Rising tensions between the West and Russia: What role for arms control?
Clingendael, December 2018

Hybrid and transnational threats
Friends of Europe, December 2018

France and European defence: Continuity in long-term objectives, change in strategy
Finnish Institute of International Relations, December 2018

Strengthening the EU as a security actor: Citizens’ views and perspectives
Trans European Policy Studies Association, December 2018

Preparing for cyber conflict: Case studies of cyber command
International Centre for Defence and Security, December 2018

Permanent deterrence: Enhancements to the US military presence in North Central Europe
Atlantic Council, December 2018

‘Fort Trump” or bust? Poland and the future of European defence
Friends of Europe, December 2018

Strategic autonomy: Towards ‘European sovereignty’ in defence?
European Union Institute for Security Studies, November 2018

NATO priorities after the Brussels summit
Atlantic Council, November 2018

NATO nuclear sharing and the future of nuclear deterrence in Europe
The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies, November 2018

A ‘European’ Army? Eminently defensible but not probable for a long time to come
Atlantic Council, November 2018

EU-NATO relations: A long-term perspective
Egmont, November 2018

Die nachrichtendienstlichen Schnittstellen der EU-Sicherheitspolitik
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, November 2018

Ein Europäischer Sicherheitsrat: Mehrwert für die Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik der EU?
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, November 2018

The United States, Russia, and Europe in 2018
Center for Strategic and International Studies, November 2018

The European dimension of nuclear deterrence: French and British policies and future scenarios
Finnish Institute of International Relations, November 2018

‘Fort Trump?’ Is there added value to a permanent U.S. military base in Poland?
Center for Strategic and International Studies, November 2018

Strengthening the EU’s cyber defence capabilities
Centre for European Policy Studies, November 2018

In Sea of Azov, Russia again tests its strength
Chatham House, November 2018

European armaments standardisation
European Union Institute for Security Studies, November 2018

The erosion of strategic stability and the future of arms control in Europe
Institut Français des Relations Internationales, November 2018

Under the gun: Rearmament for arms control in Europe
European Council on Foreign Relations, November 2018

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

Trump gets NATO backwards
Center for New American Security, November 2018

NATO nuclear sharing and the future of nuclear deterrence in Europe
The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies, October 2018

The challenges of NATO nuclear policy: Alliance management under the Trump administration
Finnish Institute of International Relations, October 2018

Addressing the nexus: Regional conventional arms control in a global context
OSCE Network of Think Tanks and Academic Institutions, October 2018

NATO after the Brussels summit: Bruised or emboldened?
German Marshall Fund, September 2018

Hard lessons from Brussels: The key challenges facing NATO
Institute for Foreign Affairs and Trade, September 2018

Debating security plus: Conflict, competition and cooperation in an interconnected world
Friends of Europe, September 2018

Germany and European defence cooperation: A post-Atlantic turn?
Finnish Institute of International Relations, September 2018

PESCO implementation: The next challenge
Clingendael, September 2018

Russia’s Vostok exercises were both serious planning and a show
Chatham House, September 2018

Russia and the Baltics: A testing ground for NATO–EU defence cooperation
Instituto Affari Internazionali, September 2018

PESCO and security cooperation between the EU and Turkey
Istambul Policy Centre, Instituto Affari Internazionali, September 2018

European strategic autonomy: Going it alone?
Clingendael, August 2018

EU-NATO cooperation: Distinguishing narrative from substance
Jacques Delors Institute, July 2018

Tailored assurance: Balancing deterrence and disarmament in responding to NATO-Russia tensions
Institut français des relations internationales, July 2018

Read this briefing note on ‘The INF Treaty and European defence‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Beatrix Immenkamp (1st edition),

© drstokvektor / Fotolia

In the context of the Commission’s proposal for a multiannual financial framework (MFF) for the 2021-2027 period, the Commission published a proposal for a Council regulation establishing a European instrument for nuclear safety complementing the neighbourhood, development and international cooperation instrument on the basis of the Euratom Treaty on 14 June 2018. The proposed regulation will replace Council Regulation (Euratom) No 237/2014 of 13 December 2013 establishing an instrument for nuclear safety cooperation (INSC). The proposed regulation will continue to fund the important activities carried out under the current regulation, namely to support the promotion of a high level of nuclear safety and radiation protection and the application of effective and efficient safeguards of nuclear materials in third countries, building on the activities under the Euratom Treaty.

Versions

• February 2019: ‘Nuclear Safety outside the EU: Proposal for a new Council regulation‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a Council regulation establishing a European Instrument for Nuclear Safety complementing the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument on the basis of the Euratom Treaty Committee responsible: Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) COM(2018) 462 of 14.06.2018 Rapporteur: Vladimir Urutchev (EPP, Bulgaria) 2018/0245(NLE) Shadow rapporteurs: Jens Geier (S&D, Germany)
Rupert Matthews (ECR, UK)
Pavel Telička (ALDE, Czech Republic)
Jaromir Kohliček (GUE/NGL, Czech Republic)
Michèle Rivasi (Greens/EFA, Italy)
Dario Tamburrano (EFDD, Italy) Consultation procedure – Parliament adopts only a non-binding opinion Next steps expected: Adoption by Council

Written by Gianluca Quaglio,

© AdobeStock/Pathdoc

The internet has received much negative news coverage in recent years. Articles focus on major privacy scandals and security breaches, the proliferation of fake news, rampant harmful behaviours like cyber-bullying, cyber-theft, revenge porn, the exchange of child porn and internet predation, internet addiction, and the negative effects of the internet on social relations and social cohesion. Nevertheless, some 87 % of European households have internet access at home, and 65 % use mobile devices to access the internet. Europeans aged 16 to 24 years spend 168 minutes per day on mobile internet, dropping to 30 minutes for 55 to 64-year olds. Around 88 % of 15 to 24-year olds use social media, 80 % on a daily basis.

While the social and economic benefits of the internet cannot be denied, some of these developments can severely affect such European values as equality, respect for human rights and democracy. Technology companies are under increasing pressure to mitigate these harmful effects, and politicians and opinion leaders are advocating drastic measures.

The recently published STOA study on ‘Harmful internet use’ covers the damage associated with internet use on individuals’ health, wellbeing and functioning, and the impact on social structures and institutions. While the study does not attempt to cover all possible societal harm relating to the internet, Part I focuses on one specific cause of harm, internet addiction, and Part II covers a range of harmful effects on individuals and society that are associated with internet use. The report concludes with policy options for their prevention and mitigation.

Other studies have already extensively discussed some harmful effects, and these are already subject to a history of policy actions. These include harm to privacy, harm related to cybersecurity and cybercrime, and damage resulting from digital divides. In contrast, this study covers the less-studied but equally important harmful effects that concern individuals’ health, wellbeing and functioning, the quality of social structures and institutions, and equality and social inclusion.

Internet addiction and problematic internet use                             

Internet addiction and problematic internet use prevalence rates vary across studies and countries. The noteworthy discrepancy in prevalence estimates has a number of causes, including the different populations studied, as well as the various diagnostic tools and assessment criteria utilised. With this in mind, it appears that roughly 4 % of European adolescents demonstrate a pathological use of the internet that affects their life and health, while 13 % of adolescents engage in maladaptive behaviour when using the internet. Similar numbers are reported for adults.

Part I of the study focuses on generalised internet addiction, online gaming addiction, and online gambling addiction. Clinical presentations, patient profiling, comorbidities, instruments, interventions, and prognoses are different across these three potential addiction disorders. The study states that the individual, cultural and media-use context significantly contributes to the experience and severity of internet addiction.

The study proposes a set of preventive actions, and evidence to support future policies. It states that offering information, screening tools and campaigns to students in secondary schools and at universities regarding internet-use-related addiction problems can help, especially regarding gaming addiction in adolescent populations. This will require allocating research and resources for schools and their staff, and for families, as well as the establishment of working relationships with health professionals and services.

Harmful social and cultural effects associated with internet use

Part II of the study identifies a number of different harmful social and cultural effects associated with internet use. The evidence points to the occurrence of significant damage to both individuals and society. Some of these harmful effects are described briefly below:

Information overload:Having too much information to be able to adequately understand an issue or make effective decisions. Information overload is associated with loss of control, feelings of being overwhelmed, reduced intellectual performance, and diminished job satisfaction. Studies show that information overload affects up to 20-30% of people.

Damage to social relationships:Extensive internet use, of social media in particular, is correlated with loneliness and social isolation. Intimate relationships can be degraded by internet use, particularly due to viewing online pornography. Malicious online behaviour, particularly cyber-bullying, cyber-stalking and online predation, affects a significant percentage of internet users.

Impaired public/private boundaries: The way in which the internet and smartphones blur the distinction between private and public, and between different spheres of life, including work, home life and leisure, harms the boundaries between people’s public and private lives. Harmful effects that can result from such permeations include loss of quality of life, lack of privacy, decreased safety and security, and harm to social relations – when friends and family members feel they are left behind by new technology.

Harmful effects on cognitive development:Empirical evidence suggests that internet use can have both positive and negative impacts on cognitive development, depending on the person and the circumstances. There is evidence that children’s cognitive development can be damaged by prolonged internet use, including the development of memory skills, attention span, abilities for critical reasoning, language acquisition, reading, and learning abilities. More research is however needed to draw more reliable conclusions.

Damage to communities: Many off-line communities suffer through the partial migration of human activities – shopping, commerce, socialising, leisure activities, professional interactions – to the internet. Online communities sometimes extend off-line communities and sometimes replace them. They are often inadequate replacements, however, as they do not possess some of the valuable or the strongest qualities of off-line communities, and communities may consequently suffer from impoverished communication, incivility, and a lack of trust and commitment.

The study identifies a number of broad policy options for preventing and mitigating these harmful effects. They include, among other things:

1. promoting technology that better protects social institutions, stimulating or requiring tech companies to introduce products and services that better protect social institutions and internet users;
2. education about the internet and its consequences;
3. stronger social services support for internet users: this policy option involves strengthening social services dedicated to internet users to prevent or mitigate harmful effects such as internet addition, antisocial online behaviour or information overload;
4. incentivising or requiring employers to develop policies that protect workers against harmful effects of work-related internet use, such as information overload and the blurring of lines between public and private life;
5. establishing governmental units and multi-stakeholder platforms at EU level,to address the problems of the internet’s harmful social and cultural effects.

Problematic use of the internet (pui) research network

Finally, in relation to internet-caused damage, it is worth mentioning the recent article published by the European Science-Media Hub (ESMH) on the European Problematic Use of Internet (PUI) research network. The project, funded by the European Commission, gathers over 120 psychologists, psychiatrists and neuroscientists, with the objective of reaching a better definition of diagnostic criteria, the role of genetics and personality traits, and the brain-based mechanisms behind internet related disorders.

Written by Mar Negreiro (1st edition),

© kras99 / Fotolia

On 13 September 2017, the Commission adopted a cybersecurity package containing a series of initiatives to further improve EU cyber-resilience, deterrence and defence.

A year later, the Commission presented a proposal for the creation of a European cybersecurity competence centre with a related network of national coordination centres. The initiative aims to improve and strengthen the EU’s cybersecurity capacity, by stimulating the European technological and industrial cybersecurity ecosystem as well as coordinating and pooling necessary resources in Europe.

The competence centre is supposed to become the main body that would manage EU financial resources dedicated to cybersecurity research under the two proposed programmes – Digital Europe and Horizon Europe – within the next multiannual financial framework, for 2021-2027.

Within the European Parliament, the file has been assigned to the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE). The draft report was published on 7 December 2018. The vote in ITRE is expected to take place in February 2019.

Versions

• February 2019: ‘The new European cybersecurity competence centre and network‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation establishing the European Cybersecurity Industrial, Technology and Research Competence Centre and the Network of National Coordination Centres Committee responsible: Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) COM(2018) 603 of 12.09.2018 Rapporteur: Julia Reda (Greens/EFA, Germany) 2018/0328(COD) Shadow rapporteurs: Paul Rübig (EPP, Austria)
Jens Geier (S&D, Germany)
Evžen Tošenovský (ECR, Czech Republic)
Angelika Mlinar (ALDE, Austria)
Jaromír Kohlíček (GUE/NGL, Czech Republic)
Barbara Kappel (ENF, Austria) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Vote in committee

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 small investors.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

© Drobot Dean / Fotolia

Individual investors who buy securities for themselves (and not on behalf of a fund or a bank) have access to a growing range of investment products, funds and investment-linked insurance policies, also known as ‘packaged retail and insurance-based investment products’ (or PRIIPs), offered by banks and insurance companies. The financial crisis has shown that, when it comes to investing in financial products, the information supplied to investors is of the utmost importance.

That is why the European Union’s ‘PRIIPs Regulation’ obliges companies that produce or sell such investment products to provide investors with a ‘key information document’ (referred to as a KID) for each product.

This document should be at most three pages long (font size 8 to 11) and provide clear information on the product, allowing the investor to take an informed investment decision. It should include at the very least the name of the product and the identity of the producer, the types of investors for whom it is intended, the risk and reward profile of the product (including the maximum potential loss to the investor), the costs to the investor associated with investment in the product, and also information on the complaints an investor can make, in the event of problems with the product or the person producing, advising on or selling it.

Further information

• Investment products, https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/financial-products-and-services/investment-products/index_en.htm
• Key information about investment products, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/LSU/?uri=CELEX:32014R1286

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 child victims of sexual abuse.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

© kmiragaya / Fotolia

Did you know that, according to estimates, between 10 % and 20 % of children in Europe suffer sexual abuse before they turn 18? Abuse occurs mainly in their immediate environment, but the internet and new technologies have brought a new dimension to the sexual exploitation of children, which is sometimes of a commercial nature. Victims of online abuse experience high levels of re-victimisation as long after the abuse occurred their images can still be exploited on the web.

The EU has adopted legislation to combat this very serious crime, criminalising a wide range of behaviours, both offline and online, including grooming and webcam sexual abuse, and introducing not only higher penalties, but also preventive measures. The law requires EU countries to ensure that perpetrators are disqualified from professional activities involving contact with children, and facilitates the exchange of information on convictions via the EU criminal records system. EU countries are also required to remove webpages containing or disseminating child pornography promptly. The law aims to protect child victims in criminal investigations and proceedings, and to safeguard their privacy and identity. Moreover, child sexual exploitation is a priority under the EU plan for combating serious crime, in which the EU police agency (Europol) plays an important role.

The public can also help, by taking part in the Europol’s Trace an object campaign, helping to identify the origin of an object linked to investigations, or by contacting the INHOPE network of hotlines to report suspicious online content.

Further information

• EPRS publication on combating sexual abuse of children, 2017, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_STU(2017)598614
• European Commission webpage on child sexual abuse, https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/organized-crime-and-human-trafficking/child-sexual-abuse_en
• INHOPE – International Association of Internet Hotlines, http://www.inhope.org/gns/home.aspx

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© weyo / Fotolia

The euro marked its 20th anniversary in January 2019, as debates continued about the single currency’s track-record and the shape of future reform. When the 11 original members of the euro area irrevocably fixed their exchange rates in 1999 and transferred authority over their monetary policies to the European Central Bank, the currency’s advocates hailed the move as the crowning achievement of European integration. Whilist some economists have blamed the euro-zone’s one-size-fits-all approach to interest rates for weakening growth and increasing economic divergencies between certain countries, others have pointed to the euro’s role in underpinning the single makret as well as offering resilience to Europe in withstanding the 2008-09 financial crisis and its aftermath. Opinion polls shows the euro continues to be popular among the citizens.

This note brings together commentaries, analyses and studies by major international think tanks and research institutes on the euro’s merits, its future and related issues. Earlier publications on the topics can be found in a previous edition of the series published in November 2018.

Comment accroître le rayonnement international de l’euro?
Confrontation Europe, February 2019

Twenty years of the euro: Resilience in the face of unexpected challenges
Centre for European Policy Studies, January 2019

Euroframe report 2019: Economic assessment of the euro area
Institut für Weltwirtschaft Kiel, January 2019

An anatomy of inclusive growth in Europe
Bruegel, January 2019

The euro turns 20
Centre for European Policy Studies, January 2019

The euro’s global dreams and nightmares
Centre for European Policy Studies, January 2019

Mapping the conflict between EU member states over reform of the euro zone
LSE Ideas, January 2019

Non-euro countries in the EU after Brexit
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, January 2019

The euro as an international currency
Bruegel, December 2018

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

The euro: It must change to carry on
Globsec Policy Institute, December 2018

Rebalancing the euro area: A proposal for future reform
Wilfried Martens Centre, December 2018

Does the Eurogroup’s reform of the ESM toolkit represent real progress?
Bruegel, December 2018

The unbalanced monetary union
LUISS School of European Political Economy, December 2018

Deutschland, Frankreich und Italien im Euroraum: Ursprünge, Merkmale und Folgen der begrenzten Konvergenz
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, December 2018

A better European architecture to fight money laundering
Peterson Institute for International Economics, December 2018

Forecast errors and monetary policy normalisation in the euro area
Bruegel, December 2018

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

Fixing the roof while the sun is shining
Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft, December 2018

The euro zone: A monetary union without a capital market
LUISS School of European Political Economy, December 2018

The international role of the euro
Bruegel, December 2018

Growth prospects, the natural interest rate, and monetary policy
Institut für Weltwirtschaft Kiel, January 2019

On German external imbalances
Centre for European Policy Studies, November 2018

EMU: Holding the supervisor to account
Jacques Delors Institute, November 2018

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

Sovereign risk and asset market dynamics in the euro area
Centre d’Etudes Prospectives et d’Informations Internationales, November 2018

Euro-area sovereign bond holdings: An update on the impact of quantitative easing
Bruegel, November 2018

La sauvegarde de l’euro n’est pas qu’une question économique
Centre d’Etudes Prospectives et d’Informations Internationales, November 2018

Read this ‘at a glance’ note on ‘The euro at 20‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Angelos Delivorias and Ioannis Zachariadis (1st edition),

© NicoElNino / Fotolia

Since its launch in November 2014, the Investment Plan for Europe (IPE) has had considerable success in mobilising private investment across Europe. Despite its success, investment levels in Europe remain below pre-crisis levels. There is therefore a need to provide for an extended EU investment programme under the new multiannual financial framework (MFF), which caters for multiple objectives in terms of simplification, flexibility, synergies and coherence across relevant EU policies. The InvestEU programme, expected to run from 2021 onwards, has been designed to address this challenge. It will bring diverse EU financial instruments within a single structure, making EU funding for investment projects in Europe simpler and more efficient and flexible. It will build on the success achieved by the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) and consist of the InvestEU Fund, the InvestEU Advisory Hub and the InvestEU Portal.

Versions

• February 2019: ‘The InvestEU programme: Continuing EFSI in the next MFF‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the InvestEU programme Committees responsible: Budgets (BUDG) and Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) – jointly under Rule 55 COM(2018) 439 of 6.6.2018 Rapporteurs: José Manuel Fernandes (EPP, Portugal)
Roberto Gualtieri (S&D, Italy) 2018/0229(COD) Shadow rapporteurs: Othmar Karas (EPP, Austria)
Eider Gardiazabal Rubial (S&D, Spain)
Bernd Kölmel (ECR, Germany)
Ralph Packet (ECR, Belgium)
Nils Torvalds (ALDE, Finland)
Ramon Tremosa I Balcells (ALDE, Spain)
Liadh Ni Riada (GUE/NGL, Ireland)
Dimitrios Papadimoulis (GUE/NGL, Greece)
Sven Giegold (Greens/EFA, Germany)
Jordi Solé (Greens/EFA, Spain)
Marco Valli (EFDD, Italy)
Barbara Kappel (ENF, Austria) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Trilogue negotiations