European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

Written by Vivienne Halleux,

© Narcis / Adobe Stock

Covering nearly one third of the land surface of the globe, forests make a wide range of direct and indirect contributions to human well-being. Home to most of the world’s terrestrial biodiversity, they also play an essential role in climate change mitigation, removing about a quarter of the CO2 that human activities add to the atmosphere. Worldwide, millions of hectares (ha) of forests and other types of vegetation burn every year.

Fire dynamics are shaped by a complex set of factors, including human activity and climate. While a warming and drying climate increases the risk of fires, fires, by releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, contribute in turn to global warming. Forest fires that are not balanced by vegetation regrowth, i.e. fires used in the deforestation process, and fires burning on carbon-rich peatlands are of particular concern. Fires also emit air pollutants, including particulate matter, with adverse impacts on human health. Beyond emissions of particles and gases, forest fires can also affect biodiversity and ecosystem conditions, and damage soils.

The European Union (EU) has committed to protecting the world’s forests under several international agreements and initiatives, including the United Nations (UN) Convention on Biological Diversity and the Paris Agreement on climate change. At EU level, funding is available to support forest fire prevention and restorative measures, as well as research into fire risk management. The Union civil protection mechanism can be called upon for help by any country in the world when national response capacities to fight fires are overwhelmed. Under the European Green Deal, legislative and non-legislative measures are expected in the near future to strengthen forest protection within and outside the EU. The European Parliament recently asked the European Commission to propose an EU legal framework to tackle EU-driven global deforestation, based on mandatory due diligence for companies placing forest- and ecosystem-risk commodities and derived products on the EU market, with penalties in the event of non-compliance.

Global forest distribution, with top 10 countries by reported forest area (as a % of the world’s forests)

Read the complete briefing on ‘Forest fires: Environmental stakes‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘Forest fires: Environmental stakes’ on YouTube.

 

Written by Martin Russell,

© BortN66 / Adobe Stock

Sanctions are a key part of the EU’s human rights toolbox. The EU adopts restrictive measures – mostly in the form of travel bans and asset freezes – against individuals and organisations responsible for some of the worst human rights violations.

Until now, the EU has mostly adopted sanctions targeted at individual countries. Responding to violations from countries not already covered by EU sanctions means adopting a completely new framework for each country. However, the EU is now shifting to a more thematic approach, under which sanctions focus on a particular type of problem rather than a country. For example, the EU already has sanctions on chemical weapons and cyber-attacks that can be flexibly applied to offenders from any country in the world, and it has now added thematic human rights sanctions.

The United States’ 2016 Global Magnitsky Act, named after Sergey Magnitsky, a Russian whistleblower who died in jail after exposing corruption by high-level officials, gives some idea of how future EU human rights sanctions will work. Under the act, the US government has adopted sanctions against over 100 human rights violators from a wide range of countries.

The proposal for the EU’s new sanctions regime was tabled by the Netherlands in 2018. The necessary legislation was adopted by the Council of the EU on 7 December 2020, in time for UN Human Rights Day on 10 December 2020.

Read the complete briefing on ‘EU human rights sanctions: Towards a European Magnitsky Act‘.

Countries that have EU/UN sanctions against them for human rights violations

Written by Magdalena Sapala, Marianna Pari and Nadejda Kresnichka-Nikolchova,

This briefing provides a graphic presentation of the political agreement reached on 10 November 2020 between the Parliament and the Council Presidency, enabling the EU to finance the extraordinary needs in the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic. It highlights the improvements that the European Parliament achieved in particular.

Read this briefing on ‘EU financing for 2021-2027: Political agreement on the 2021-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), the Next Generation EU (NGEU) recovery instrument and new own resources‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Suzana Anghel and Ralf Drachenberg,

© Adobe Stock

On 10 and 11 December, EU leaders will meet for their 13th meeting of 2020, bringing to a close a year of exceptionally intensive activity for the European Council. EU Heads of State or Government will address a packed agenda, covering most of 2020’s key issues: the coronavirus pandemic, climate change – notably the new EU greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets for 2030 – and the fight against terrorism, as well as various external relations issues, such as relations with the US and with Turkey. Two crucial issues, which are not on the formal agenda but could dominate discussions, are rule-of-law conditionality for the 2021-27 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) and the EU-UK negotiations. EU leaders are also expected to appoint a new member of the European Central Bank’s executive board. The Euro Summit on 11 December will focus on the revision of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) treaty and on progress towards a banking union.

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

As is customary, at the start of the European Council meeting, the President of the European Parliament, David Sassoli, will address the Heads of State or Government. Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, which currently holds the rotating six-month presidency of the Council of the EU, will provide an overview of progress made in implementing previous European Council conclusions.

2. European Council meeting Coronavirus pandemic

The European Council is expected to assess the overall situation and discuss coordination efforts in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, including on issues such as vaccines, testing and the mutual recognition of test results and vaccinations, as well as the lifting of restrictions. Most recently, at the 15th G20 Leaders’ summit in November 2020, the European Council’s President, Charles Michel, emphasised the EU’s strong commitment to ensuring affordable and fair access to a vaccine for all. In order to prevent future pandemics and provide a more coordinated response, Charles Michel also proposed the creation of an international treaty on pandemics. This would be negotiated among all nations as well as United Nations organizations and agencies, in particular the World Health Organization, which, the President of the European Council stressed, ‘must remain the cornerstone of global coordination against health emergencies’.

Climate Change

Following an ‘orientation debate’ held in October 2020, the European Council is expected to agree on new EU greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets for 2030. The European Commission has proposed a 55 % reduction in emissions – compared to 1990 levels – as the target for 2030. For its part, the European Parliament supports the position that the EU can only meet its 2050 carbon neutrality goals by reducing emissions by at least 60 % by 2030. Political consensus is still to be found, as some Member States, in particular Poland, continue to express sensitivities on the level of ambition. An agreement on emissions reduction targets would allow Member States to submit their updated nationally determined contributions (NDCs) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change by the end of 2020.

The EU’s credibility and ability to act as a global leader in the fight against climate change depends on both the level of ambition on emissions reductions and its ability to achieve its own targets. Thus far, the EU has been able to go beyond its own target for 2020, and reduce emissions by 24 % instead of the agreed 20 % target. Climate diplomacy is, as recognised by the European Council, central to the EU’s climate action. Its importance will only grow in the coming years if the US were to re-join the Paris Agreement, in which case a significant part of the future transatlantic agenda could be dedicated to climate change dialogue.

Internal security and the fight against terrorism

The European Council will address security issues, focusing on the fight against terrorism and violent extremism, including online. It will most likely reiterate its condemnation of recent terrorist attacks, affirming its solidarity in the fight against terrorism and upholding the EU’s common values. Discussions among EU leaders will also draw on the 13 November 2020 statement of EU home affairs ministers on the recent terrorist attacks in Europe. In this joint statement, ministers pledged to protect Europe’s societies and its people, to uphold common values and the European way of life and to safeguard our pluralist societies. They recalled that the security structures and legal frameworks in the Member States and at European Union level have been strengthened over the past two decades, but indicated that additional efforts and resources are required to fully implement the legislation adopted.

The day before the European Council, on 9 December, the European Commission adopted a new ‘EU agenda on counter-terrorism’ progress report, and a proposal to strengthen Europol’s mandate. EU Heads of State or Government are expected to call on the Commission to take work forward regarding the new EU agenda on counter-terrorism and ask for the swift adoption of the proposal on preventing the dissemination of terrorist content online. Moreover, in order to improve the proper functioning of the Schengen area, new steps in police cooperation and coordination as well as the reinforcement of external borders are required – as is also the fully effective implementation of previously agreed measures.

With regard to fighting illegal content online, the European Council will most likely welcome the forthcoming Commission proposal for a Digital Services Act expected on 15 December 2020, which aims at reinforcing the responsibilities of online platforms. Regarding the judicial aspects of fighting terrorism, EU Heads of State or Government should draw on the results of the meeting of EU justice ministers of 2 December covering ways to better combat hate speech online and improve digital cooperation in order to better address cross-border digital crime.

Multiannual Financial Framework

EU leaders are also expected to discuss the MFF for the 2021-27 period, notably rule-of-law conditionality, namely the proposed general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget. Following Hungary and Poland’s decision to withhold their consent on the Own Resources Decision, which is a prerequisite for the roll-out of Next Generation EU (NGEU), the EU co-legislators have so far not been able to adopt the overall package of measures linked to the 2021-27 MFF. Hungary and Poland chose to block the adoption of the Own Resources Decision which requires unanimity, while the rule-of-law conditionality regulation, the real subject of their concern, is decided upon by qualified majority voting.

The European Commission is considering different options, in case no agreement can be found on time, such as to move forward with only 25 Member States, or at least adopting the urgently needed recovery fund, aimed at helping Member States deal with the economic effects of the pandemic.

On 26 November, the Prime Ministers of Hungary and Poland issued a joint declaration, in which they reiterated their disagreement with the current compromise between the Council Presidency and the European Parliament on rule-of-law conditionality. They argue that it does not comply with the agreement reached at the July 2020 European Council meeting. They propose to ‘limit the scope of any additional budgetary conditionality to the protection of the financial interests of the Union’, and to discuss in the European Council whether a link between the rule of law and the financial interests of the Union should be established. This ‘elevation’ of issues from the Council to the European Council level would constitute another case of the European Council becoming involved in a legislative process; although Article 15(1) TEU clearly specifies that it ‘shall not exercise legislative functions’. This practice occurs specifically in cases when individual Member States seek to impose consensus as the decision-making method on a sensitive issue, and thus to circumvent qualified majority voting (QMV) in Council, as has previously happened, notably for migration. The European Parliament has repeatedly expressed its discontent with this practice.

Following a discussion with David Sassoli, the European Parliament’s President, Antonio Costa, the Prime Minister of Portugal, and incoming holder of the rotating six-month presidency of the Council of the EU, stressed that it was vital to conclude the MFF discussions at this European Council meeting. Antonio Costa and David Sassoli underlined that the rule-of-law conditionality agreement between Council and Parliament could not be reopened.

External relations EU-UK negotiations

Given the deadlock over recent weeks, the two negotiating teams are currently attempting to iron out a deal as soon as feasibly possible on outstanding issues, notably on the level playing field provisions, governance and fisheries. Whether the result delivers a breakthrough or ‘no deal’, preparations need to be accelerated at EU level. The European Council meeting could in principle sign off a final agreement, although, for now, the topic is not formally on the agenda. In addition, an extra European Parliament plenary session could be scheduled in late December, if necessary, to ratify an agreement.

Eastern Mediterranean and relations with Turkey

The European Council is expected to assess the evolution of the situation in the eastern Mediterranean and consider a new framework for relations with Turkey. Similarly to what happened in October 2020, Turkey is once again de-escalating ahead of a European Council meeting by pulling back its seismic exploration vessel, Oruç Reis. However, this time around, the decision of EU leaders will most probably be based on an assessment of Turkey’s behaviour ‘over a certain period of time’ rather than on one-off actions. The most sensitive aspect for EU leaders to consider is whether to agree to the introduction of sanctions over Turkey’s repeated violations of the Greek and Cypriot maritime zones, a course of action which the European Parliament has supported in a recent resolution. Turkey’s assertive behaviour in the eastern Mediterranean is one of the many issues that have brought EU-Turkey relations to a historic low in recent months.

Southern Neighbourhood

Twenty-five years after the launch of the Barcelona process, EU leaders will consider the Southern Neighbourhood. The new Leaders’ Agenda 2020-2021 first indicated the European Council’s intention to hold a debate on the Southern Neighbourhood, a development later confirmed by the 15-16 October European Council conclusions. This will be the first time in over five years that the European Council will focus on this region, while a joint communication on a renewed partnership is awaited. In her State of Union address, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen confirmed the EU’s commitment to supporting its southern partners in their job creation and economic development efforts.

Other external relations items

The European Council could also touch upon other external relations items, including relations with Africa, following the EU leaders meeting with African Union leaders scheduled for 9 December 2020.

EU-US relations

On 2 December 2020, the European Commission and the High Representative, Josep Borell, published a joint communication on ‘A new EU-US agenda for global change’. The document aims to shape a ‘new forward-looking transatlantic agenda’ for cooperation along four main lines: i) the fight against Covid-19 and the reform of the World Health Organization; ii) climate change; iii) technology, trade and standard setting; and iv) security and defence. On 7 December 2020, the Foreign Affairs Council held an exchange of views on transatlantic relations, and EU leaders are expected to discuss the topic further during their meeting. President Michel, who has spoken in favour of rebuilding ‘strong transatlantic’ ties, has held consultations with his peers on this issue ahead of the European Council meeting.

3. Euro Summit

On 11 December, the Euro Summit will meet for the first time in 2020 in an inclusive format with all EU‑27 leaders (the standard Euro Summit includes only the leaders of the euro-area countries together with the non-euro-area countries that have ratified the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the EMU (TSCG)).[i] EU leaders will receive an update on progress towards a banking union from Eurogroup President Paschal Donohoe, and are likely to welcome the agreement reached in the Eurogroup meeting of 30 November on the reform of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM). The latter notably includes the establishment of a line of credit to the Single Resolution Fund by 2022 with a view to further safeguarding financial stability and strengthening the euro area’s resilience. Once signed by Eurogroup members, probably in January, the revised ESM treaty will need to be ratified by national parliaments, which could take up to a year. Paschal Donohoe noted that ‘we want to keep our progress and our momentum going’. This agreement is a significant milestone towards the completion of a banking union. The next steps would be an agreement on the third pillar of a banking union, a European deposit insurance scheme, on which negotiations have been stalled for years.

Read this briefing on ‘Outlook for the meetings of EU leaders on 10-11 December 2020‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Suzana Anghel, Izabela Bacian, Ralf Drachenberg and Annastiina Papunen,

© Adobe Stock

Established as an informal summit meeting in 1975, the European Council became a formal European Union institution, with a full-time President, in 2009, on the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. It consists of the Heads of State or Government of the 27 EU Member States, the President of the European Council and the President of the European Commission (Article 15(2) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU)). The latter two individuals have no voting rights. Meetings of the European Council are normally also attended by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The President of the European Parliament is ‘invited to speak’ as the first item on the European Council’s agenda, followed by an exchange of views (Article 235(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, TFEU). At its formal meetings, normally four per year, the European Council adopts ‘conclusions’ that are aimed at identifying policy priorities and action to be taken by the Union as a whole.

The European Council’s role is to ‘provide the Union with the necessary impetus for its development and define the general political directions and priorities’ (Article 15(1) TEU). It cannot exercise legislative functions. At the beginning of the 2014-2019 and the 2019-2024 institutional cycles, the European Council also adopted an agenda of strategic priorities, designed to guide the work of the European Union over the five-year period.

Reflecting the direction taken by the 2017 Rome Agenda, set out on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Rome Treaties, the new 2019-2024 strategic agenda, adopted by the Heads of State or Government at their meeting in June 2019, defines migration and the protection of citizens as the top priorities for action in the forthcoming five years. Next comes the development of a stronger economic base, including the fight against unemployment, followed by climate change and social issues. Finally, it looks to increase the EU’s influence and defend its interests in the world. The four core priorities set out in the 2019-2024 strategic agenda broadly corresponded to the concerns of EU citizens at the time, as reflected in the 2019 standard Eurobarometer.

Read the complete study on ‘Key issues in the European Council: State of play in December 2020‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

The role of the European Council is to ‘provide the Union with the necessary impetus for its development’ and to define its ‘general political directions and priorities’. Since its creation in 1975, the European Council has exercised considerable influence over the development of the European Union, a process enhanced by its designation as a formal institution of the Union under the Lisbon Treaty in 2009.
The European Council Oversight Unit within the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) monitors and analyses the activities, commitments and impact of the European Council, so as to maximise parliamentary understanding of the political dynamics of this important institution.
This EPRS publication, ‘Key issues in the European Council’, which is updated every quarter to coincide with European Council meetings, aims to provide an overview of the institution’s activities on major EU issues. It analyses twelve broad policy areas, explaining the legal and political background, the main priorities and orientations defined by the European Council and the results of its involvement to date, as well as some of the future challenges in each policy field.

Written by Liselotte Jensen,

© Olivier Le Moal / Adobe Stock

The EU’s current greenhouse gas emissions reduction target for 2030, of 40 % compared with 1990 levels, was agreed by the European Council in 2014, along with targets for renewable energy and energy efficiency. Since 2017, the European Parliament has been urging the European Commission to develop a zero-emission long-term 2050 vision for the European Union. Following Parliament’s reiteration of this demand and a similar call from the European Council, in November 2018 the Commission adopted a strategic long-term vision, aiming for climate neutrality by 2050.

Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has committed to this goal with the European Green Deal, proposing to set the EU 2050 climate-neutrality target in legislation by means of a European climate law. As part of the climate-neutrality commitment, the Commission is proposing to review and revise the 2030 greenhouse gas emissions target, to ensure a realistic and feasible trajectory towards 2050. On 17 September 2020, on the basis of a public consultation and an in-depth impact assessment, the Commission adopted a communication on the climate target plan. The climate target plan proposes to increase the 2030 target from a 40 % emissions reduction to a 55 % net emissions reduction, compared with 1990 levels. The communication outlines sectoral targets and approaches, as well as the regulatory revisions and new initiatives needed in the climate and energy policy framework. In the 2021 Commission work programme, the numerous revisions required are presented under the package ‘Fit for 55’.

The 2030 target, embedded in the future climate law, will be subject to interinstitutional negotiations, with Parliament having adopted its position of a higher 60 % emissions reduction target at its October 2020 plenary session. The European Council discussed the climate target plan at its October 2020 meeting, and will revisit it in December with a view to agreeing the 2030 target.

Read the complete briefing on ‘EU climate target plan: Raising the level of ambition for 2030‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Nicole Scholz,

© jarun011 / Adobe Stock

The coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic remains a major threat to public health in the European Union (EU). Testing is considered an essential aspect of the response to the pandemic.

There are different types of coronavirus tests, each having its own merits and limitations. The timing of tests is also critical. Among the tests that detect current infection, (rapid) antigen tests have recently come to the fore.

In view of a resurgence of coronavirus cases, the European Commission adopted on 28 October 2020 a recommendation for a common EU testing approach for Covid-19. It addresses key points linked to testing capacities and resources, as well as rapid antigen tests. This was followed on 18 November by a recommendation on the use of rapid antigen tests for the diagnosis of Covid-19, which provides guidance on how to select rapid antigen tests, when they are appropriate and who should perform them. It also calls for validation and mutual recognition of tests and their results.

EU and international public health bodies, including the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and the World Health Organization, have given testing recommendations and outlined strategies and objectives.

Several Member States have started to use rapid antigen tests in practice. Testing policies range from testing only people who both have symptoms and also meet specific criteria, to testing anyone with symptoms, to open public testing, including asymptomatic people.

In a September 2020 resolution, the European Parliament called for the adoption and implementation of a common testing strategy under which test results would be recognised in all Member States.

Since the outbreak of the pandemic, coronavirus testing has rapidly evolved and will continue to play an important role. New methods are emerging, including ‘out of the box’ options.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Coronavirus testing: Contributing to efforts to stem the second wave‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© Leigh Prather / Adobe Stock

As the second wave of the coronavirus pandemic appears to be peaking in Europe, governments and citizens are buoyed by the successful human trials of several vaccines which their producers hope to be able to distribute broadly over the coming months. There is a growing expectation that, as these vaccines start to become available to the general public in coming months, daily life may gradually return to normal, or at least to a ‘new normal’, during the course of 2021. Meanwhile, many regions of the world continue in some form of lockdown to stave off the second wave. The political debate on health policy is currently focussed on not only priorities for distributing the vaccine in the advanced economies, such as those of the EU, but on how to make it available to poorer countries too, as scientists underline that the virus knows no borders.

This note offers links to recent commentaries, studies and reports from major international think tanks on pandemic-related issues. Earlier think tank studies on the issue can be found in the ‘What Think Tanks are Thinking’ of 10 November.

Managing the unimaginable
Friends of Europe, December 2020

Meeting the healthcare needs of chronic patients: Lessons to learn from the Covid-19 pandemic
Friends of Europe, November 2020

Covid-19 is ushering in a new era in geopolitics: We must embrace it
Friends of Europe, November 2020

How African tech reinvented universal income to combat Covid-19
Friends of Europe, November 2020

Course aux vaccins contre le Covid-19: Quels enjeux géopolitiques?
Institut des relations internationales et stratégiques, November 2020

Les conséquences économiques du Covid-19 et ses enjeux géopolitiques
Institut des relations internationales et stratégiques, November 2020

Covid-19: Des vaccins sous le sapin?
Institut des relations internationales et stratégiques, November 2020

The scarring effect of Covid-19: Youth unemployment in Europe
Bruegel, November 2020

Grading the big pandemic test
Bruegel, November 2020

Europe is losing competitiveness in global value chains while China surges
Bruegel, November 2020

Covid-19 could leave another generation of young people on the scrapheap
Bruegel, November 2020

Covid-19 révèle la solitude stratégique de l’Europe
Institut français des relations internationales, November 2020

Les opinions publiques européennes à l’égard de la Chine au temps de la Covid-19: Différences et points communs à travers le continent
Institut français des relations internationales, November 2020

French public opinion on China in the age of Covid-19: Political distrust trumps economic opportunities
Institut français des relations internationales, November 2020

A Democratic tour de force: How the Korean State successfully limited the spread of Covid-19
Institut français des relations internationales, November 2020

Europeanising health policy in times of coronationalism
Clingendael, November 2020

The effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on US and European commitment to the multilateral economic order
Instituto Affari Internazionali, November 2020

The Aftermath: American power after Covid-19
Instituto Affari Internazionali, November 2020

Covid-19 and the foreign policy perceptions of US public and elites
Instituto Affari Internazionali, November 2020

The pandemic, digitisation and international trade: New challenges for the G20
Istituto per gli Studi di Politica Internazionale, November 2020

After the pandemic: Global overheating to take centre stage at T20 and G20
Istituto per gli Studi di Politica Internazionale, November 2020

The skill challenges posed by Covid-19
Centre for European Policy Studies, November 2020

The insurance properties of common debt issuance
Centre for European Policy Studies, November 2020

Tracking European solidarity during Covid-19: Lessons from the first wave
European Council on Foreign Relations, November 2020

Bubble trouble: Estonia and the coronavirus crisis
European Council on Foreign Relations, November 2020

Latvia during Covid: How success bred complacency
European Council on Foreign Relations, October 2020

What is the world doing to create a Covid-19 vaccine?
Council on Foreign Relations, November 2020

Home for thanksgiving: How holidays may present a public health threat
Council on Foreign Relations, November 2020

Reflections on the election in pandemic America
Council on Foreign Relations, November 2020

Improving pandemic preparedness: Lessons from Covid-19
Council on Foreign Relations, November 2020

Télétravail: Qu’apporte le nouvel accord conclu par les partenaires sociaux ?
Institute Montaigne, November 2020

Covid-19: La réponse des plateformes en ligne face à l’ultradroite
Fondation pour l’innovation politique, November 2020

Covid, trade, the G20, WTO and Oscar Wilde
European Centre for International Political Economy, November 2020

Six aspects of daily life rapidly changed by Covid-19
Chatham House, November 2020

Why the pandemic and populism still work together
Chatham House, November 2020

Reimagining the global economy for a post-COVID-19 world
Brookings Institution, November 2020

How to address inequality exposed by the Covid-19 pandemic
Brookings Institution, November 2020

Coronavirus pandemic
Fundacion Real Instituto Elcano, November 2020

La crise de la Covid19 pourrait conduire à revoir la place du militaire dans les priorités budgétaires
Groupe de Recherche et d’Information sur la Paix et la Sécurité, November 2015

How to use data for the public interest, even – or especially – in a pandemic
Heinrich Böll Stiftung, November 2020

Government in a pandemic
Cato, November 2020

Protecting democracy and public health from online disinformation
German Marshall Fund, November 2020

A public sector view of tech, inclusion, and participation during the coronavirus
German Marshall Fund, October 2020

Can the EU solve the budget and rule-of-law crisis?
Carnegie Europe, October 2020

Coronavirus tracking apps: Normalizing surveillance during states of emergency
Carnegie Europe, October 2020

Brexit and Covid-19 are a toxic mix
Centre for European Reform, October 2020

The Covid crisis, an opportunity for a ‘new multilateralism’?
Confrontations Europe, October 2020

Recovering from the pandemic: An appraisal of lessons learned
Fondation Européenne d’Etudes Progressistes, October 2020

Covid: Faute d’avoir mis à profit les six derniers mois, l’État sacrifie nos libertés
Institut Thomas More, October 2020

Read this briefing on ‘Coronavirus: The battle continues‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Jana Titievskaia, Carla Stamegna, Vadim Kononenko, Cecilia Navarra and Klemen Zumer,

© European Union, 2020

The period from the fall of the Berlin Wall to the global financial crisis of 2007 marked an era of fast-growing interdependence between different economies and cultures, brought about by cross-border movements of people, goods, services, capital and data. Far from being the first ‘globalisation’ wave, it is considered to be a period of ‘hyperglobalisation’. The decade which followed the financial crisis of 2007-2008 was marked by a slowdown in global interconnectedness. In 2019, the term ‘slowbalisation’ spread, to signify the waning of globalisation as we know it. For instance, international trade and investment relative to gross domestic product (GDP) started to decline. Supply chains began to contract after years of global outsourcing and offshoring. In terms of international cooperation and multilateralism, the pace of the world’s economic integration waned. For some governments, notably the Trump administration in the United States of America (USA), it is no longer evident that international institutions such as the World Trade Organization or the World Health Organization are fit for purpose. Rising nationalist and populist leaders in several parts of the world began questioning the ideological doxas of globalism and, in some cases, neoliberalism. Nevertheless, globalisation in other areas, such as international data flows, migration and tourism, continued to expand, indicating that perhaps globalisation was merely changing shape. In 2020, the coronavirus pandemic dealt a profound shock to global trade, investment and travel. The disruption to the physical movement of people, goods and services brought about by the pandemic has been so severe that the thesis of ‘slowbalisation’ merits thorough analysis.

Globalisation has been evolving over time, becoming increasingly complex and multi-faceted. In this paper, five pathways of globalisation have been selected to illustrate the contrasting ways in which global integration has been slowing down, accelerating or continuing. Each exhibits a different development pattern:

• Cross-border trade in goods and services slowed in terms of volume and relative to GDP, in spite of record low average tariffs. This slowdown can be traced to variation in supply chains, accounting principles, escalating protectionism, and most recently Covid‑19.
• Global financial openness slowed after the financial crisis in terms of cross-border capital flows and bank lending. However, international regulatory cooperation in the realm of global finance continued to increase, only recently showing a trend towards some reversal.
• Deepening inequality has been a by-product of hyperglobalisation, has continued during the slowbalisation phase, and is likely to continue after Covid‑19. The causes are rooted in government policies affecting income distribution, including taxation and the strength of multinational corporations.
• Globalisation of social interactions, reflected in rates of tourism and migration, did not slow until the sudden arrival of the Covid‑19 pandemic.
• International digital exchanges, measured by cross-border data flows, have continued expanding throughout the ‘slowbalisation’ period. Social distancing and restrictions on international travel are likely to accelerate globalisation in the digital realm.

As a result of the Covid‑19 crisis, the future could be one of patchy globalisation, characterised by more immaterial exchanges, and posing further challenges to the future of global governance and international cooperation. The EU could lead the way towards a more sustainable and considered form of globalisation in each of these realms.

Read the complete ‘in-depth analysis’ on ‘Slowing down or changing track? Understanding the dynamics of ‘Slowbalisation’‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

 

Written by Ivana Katsarova,

The International Day of Persons with Disabilities has been marked every 3 December since 1992 to promote awareness and mobilise support for critical issues relating to the inclusion of persons with disabilities in society and development. According to the United Nations, a billion people in the world, 80 % of them in developing countries, live with disabilities today. Globally, an estimated 46 % of people aged 60 and over are among those with disabilities. Moreover, one in every five women and one in every 10 children are likely to experience disability in their lifetime. In the EU, there are over 70 million people with a disability, roughly equivalent to 17.5 % of the total population. This figure is set to rise rapidly over the next decade, given that the EU population is ageing and that more than a third of those over 75 have a disability. Worryingly, people with disabilities are among the hardest hit by Covid-19.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Lowering hurdles to sport for persons with disabilities‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Elena Lazarou and Jana Titievskaia with Cecilia Handeland,

© corund / Adobe Stock

The election of the 46th President of the United States took place on 3 November 2020 amidst the unprecedented scenario of the coronavirus pandemic. Following several days of vote-counting, the democratic candidate, Joe Biden, secured the electoral votes needed to become the next President of the United States. His inauguration will take place on 20 January 2021.

Domestic concerns, most notably the management of the coronavirus crisis and the economy, as well as racial issues, were the most important subjects in determining voter preference. As usual, foreign policy did not rank highly amidst voters’ concerns. However, for the European Union, the impact of the election of Joe Biden on US foreign policy will leave a substantial mark on the future course of transatlantic relations and of global cooperation.

While foreign policy under the forthcoming Biden Administration is expected to depart from some of the key tenets of President Trump’s ‘America First’ foreign policy, experts also point to a high possibility of continuity in areas such as trade and relations with China. However, on climate change, multilateral cooperation and support for NATO, expectations are high regarding a potential return to deep levels of transatlantic consensus and cooperation. Biden’s foreign policy is likely to focus on multilateral cooperation, for example by re-joining the Paris Agreement on climate change and resuming US support for the World Health Organization. The former Vice-President has stated he will likely re-join the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA, or Iran Nuclear Deal) in time, and pursue an extension of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia.

Read the complete briefing on ‘US foreign policy after the 2020 Presidential election: Issues for the European Union‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Vasilis Margaras,

© Brad Pict / Adobe Stock.

The coronavirus pandemic is severely impacting the European population and the economy. Consequently the social and economic impact of the crisis is being felt in all EU regions. Although it is still too early to make concrete predictions about the long-term economic impact, the risks of increased disparities and the unravelling of previous years’ progress are real. Furthermore; the consequences of the Covid‑19 pandemic could well further impede the social, economic and territorial cohesion of the EU, by exacerbating existing divisions between EU regions.

The European Commission has put forward a number of proposals to alleviate the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on EU territories. The European Parliament has been generally supportive of the Commission’s proposals, triggering urgent procedures to approve them swiftly so that EU citizens could benefit immediately. Actions under various EU funds and policy instruments are now geared towards health-related purposes and the rekindling of the economy. In these critical times, cohesion policy is increasingly drawn upon to provide emergency relief and liquidity support to affected small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and companies. Amendments to the regulation governing the European structural and investment (ESI) funds were approved by Parliament to allow flexible use of the funds in addressing the challenges posed by the crisis. A number of additional regulations and policy instruments meanwhile complement the ESI funds in the fight against the pandemic’s negative consequences.

Local and regional authorities are at the forefront of the pandemic, as they are often responsible for providing much of the emergency response. They can use the adopted EU measures to reinforce their coronavirus action and to support their economic sectors.

This briefing is an update of an earlier edition, published in May 2020.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Exceptional coronavirus support measures of benefit to EU regions‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Mihalis Kritikos,

Digital human rights and the future of democracy: Lessons from the pandemic

Digital technologies are increasingly shaping our economy, politics, and society. As many online activities leave a digital trace, our digital activity allows automatic gathering of a wealth of behavioural data. However, digital processes and technologies are no longer only monitoring our behaviour, but via the use of predictive analytics, are also influencing it in a pervasive way. As major internet platforms increasingly frame public discourse, concern is rising as to how artificial intelligence (AI) and other emerging digital technologies are affecting our lives and our societies.

The accelerating commodification of personal data used for the design, training and validation of predictive algorithms and the extensive use of highly targeted behaviour modification techniques have become a new source of legal and ethical concern. Given that our decisions are increasingly ‘nudged’ by powerful data-mining algorithms, the threat of algocracy – ‘rule by the algorithm’ – challenges the rule of law and erodes human agency, privacy and even democracy, in many ways.

The ongoing pandemic has accelerated our dependence on the digital world and our transformation from data subjects to data suppliers. Although digital technologies have been an important aspect of our crisis response in terms of detection, treatment and prevention, there are concerns that this increasing digitisation may lead to augmented surveillance, massive digital dependence and high epistemic asymmetries. Coronavirus as the first pandemic of the ‘algorithmic age’ is exposing the pathologies in the data governance ecosystem, which has left unaccountable private actors in possession of both our data, and the means to extract economic value from it.

How can we defend human rights in the digital age and shape a framework for democratic and egalitarian governance? How can we manage the disruption that digitalisation imposes on democracy and human rights? Can our political and human rights be safeguarded in the digital age? Whose responsibility is it to tackle these risks and strengthen data sovereignty and algorithmic transparency underpinning a fully democratic digital society and rights-preserving data ecosystem? Can the rule of law and ethics help us reclaim our data sovereignty and uphold the principles of liberal democracy? Do online platforms view users of digital technologies as citizens with full control of their data or mere data suppliers? How is power in the digital world expressing itself and how is it distributed?

This year’s STOA Annual Lecture is expected to offer some well-informed answers to these crucial questions. The 2020 Annual Lecture will focus on the disruptive effects of the digital revolution upon democracy and the protection of civil liberties and human rights in the context of the current pandemic. It will examine the multifaceted impacts of digital technology on the notion of democratic citizenship and our ability to remain in control of our choices and data. The Annual Lecture 2020, led and moderated by STOA Chair Eva Kaili (S&D, Greece), will investigate the challenges associated with the growing ‘datafication’ and ‘platformisation’ of our societies, the need to reclaim data sovereignty in the era of AI, and address the plurality of socio-ethical challenges of digitisation.

The Annual Lecture will open with remarks from Eva Kaili, following which European Commission Vice-President for the European Way of Life, Margaritis Schinas, will deliver an introductory speech. The keynote lecture will be delivered by Shoshana Zuboff, Charles Edward Wilson Professor Emerita of Business Administration at Harvard Business School, and award-winning author of ‘The Age of Surveillance Capitalism’. Professor Zuboff is a world-class thinker whose research is focused on the contested digital transition, its relationship to the future of capitalism, and the consequences for individuals and society.

A panel discussion of key new technologies will follow, with the participation of Members of the European Parliament and two eminent experts: Fredrik Heintz, Associate Professor of Computer Science at Linköping University, Sweden and President of the Swedish AI Society, and Karen Yeung, Professor of Law, Ethics and Informatics at the University of Birmingham Law School and School of Computer Science. The event will close with an (online) public debate.

Interested? Register for the lecture and join the debate.

Written by Jakub Przetacznik,

© SIARHEI RABCHONAK / Adobe Stock

At a time when authoritarianism is rising, the Sakharov Prize draws attention to the situation of those who resist the repression of human rights and fundamental freedoms. This year, the prize is to be awarded to the democratic opposition in Belarus, represented by the Coordination Council. It rewards its courageous and peaceful role in opposing the falsification of the August 2020 elections, despite a brutal crackdown by the authorities. The Sakharov Prize will be presented in a ceremony during the European Parliament’s December plenary session.

Significance of the Sakharov Prize

Every year, since 1988, the European Parliament has awarded the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought to individuals or organisations for outstanding achievement in defending human rights and fundamental freedoms – notably the right to freedom of expression, safeguarding the rights of minorities, upholding international law, developing democracy, and implementing the rule of law. Initiated by a 1985 parliamentary resolution, the prize is named after Andrei Sakharov, the eminent Soviet-Russian nuclear physicist, 1975 Nobel Peace Prize winner, dissident and human rights activist.

Award procedure and the 2020 Sakharov Prize finalists and laureate

Political groups, or at least 40 Members of the European Parliament, nominate the candidates for the Sakharov Prize. From the list of nominees, three finalists are then shortlisted by Members in a joint vote of the Committees on Foreign Affairs and Development, as well as the Subcommittee on Human Rights.

The three finalists for the 2020 Sakharov Prize were: the democratic opposition in Belarus, represented by the Coordination Council, an initiative of brave women and other political and civil society figures; Guapinol activists and Berta Cáceres in Honduras – an environmental group peacefully protesting against mining activities polluting local rivers, whose members were either imprisoned or murdered (Berta Cáceres in March 2016 and, most recently, Arnold Joaquin Morazán Erazo in October 2020); and Monsignor Najeeb Michaeel, Archbishop of Mosul, Iraq – who ensured the evacuation of Christians, Syriacs and Chaldeans to Iraqi Kurdistan and safeguarded more than 800 historic manuscripts, written in Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic and Armenian, thus saving both people’s lives and their historical heritage.

On 22 October 2020, Parliament’s Conference of Presidents announced the decision to honour the democratic opposition in Belarus with the 2020 Sakharov Prize. The opposition is represented by the Coordination Council, which comprises opposition candidate Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, Nobel Laureate Svetlana Alexievich, musician and political activist Maryia Kalesnikava, political activists Volha Kavalkova and Veranika Tsapkala, video blogger and political prisoner Siarhei Tsikhanouski, Ales Bialiatski, founder of Viasna, a Belarusian human rights organisation, Siarhei Dyleuski, the leader of the Minsk Tractor Works strike committee, Stsiapan Putsila, founder of the Telegram channel NEXTA, and Mikola Statkevich, political prisoner and presidential candidate in the 2010 election.

Announcing the decision, Parliament’s President, David Sassoli, congratulated the representatives of the Belarusian opposition ‘for their courage, resilience and determination’, adding that ‘even if the adversary is much stronger, the truth is on their side’. President Sassoli encouraged the laureates ‘to stay strong and not to give up’ on their fight. The democratic opposition is the third Sakharov prize laureate from Belarus. The previous two were the Belarusian Association of Journalists in 2004, and Aliaksandr Milinkevich, a democratic opposition candidate during the 2006 presidential elections.

Democratic opposition in Belarus represented by the Coordination Council

After 26 years of Aliaksandr Lukashenka’s presidency and previous attempts to democratise their state, Belarusians tried once more to change their president in 2020. On 9 August, Lukashenka, the incumbent president (often referred to in the media as Europe’s ‘last dictator’), again stood as a candidate in the presidential elections. Conversely, Viktar Babaryka and Siarhei Tsikhanouski were refused the right to stand in the election, and were arrested. Valer Tsapkala’s candidacy was also refused and he fled the country. Subsequently, the Lukashenka regime permitted Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya to run in the elections. Many commentators consider that this was due to Lukashenka’s conviction that Belarusians would not support a female candidate. Prior to the election, Lukashenka claimed that the strong presidential powers provided in the Belarusian Constitution mean that women are unfit to be president. However, the Belarusian people decided differently and gave Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya broad support, with independent exit polls showing her as winning with an absolute majority of votes. Nevertheless, the official results stated that Lukashenka had’ won the election with over 80 % of the votes. In response, Belarusians staged strikes, demonstrations and women’s marches in protest against the electoral fraud. The police responded with violence, torture, arrests and sexual violence. The murder of protesters fuelled further protest and was condemned internationally.

Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya was forced into exile on 11 August 2020, and while in the Lithuanian capital, Vilnius, established the Coordination Council on 19 August. The Coordination Council’s aim is to facilitate the transfer of power through negotiation, without changing the Belarusian constitutional order or foreign policy. The Coordination Council expressed three demands: end violence and political persecution by the authorities and conduct an investigation into human rights abuses; release all political prisoners, annul all illegal court decisions and provide monetary compensation to victims; and conduct new presidential elections based on international standards, with newly formed electoral commissions. The Coordination Council stated that, until these demands are met, the ‘Belarusian people will continue to exercise their civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution’. The findings of an October 2020 OSCE report support the Coordination Council demands, calling for a re-run of the election, ‘due to irregularities at all stages of the process’.

Belarus government actions against democratic opposition

Several Coordination Council members were either forced into exile or were arrested. Two out of seven members of the Coordination Council Board, Mariya Kalesnikava and Maksim Znak remained under arrest in mid-November. They are not the only ones to have been arrested. During the first four days of protests alone, some 6 700 people were arrested, and many are still detained. The OSCE report testifies that there were massive and systematic human rights abuses around events related to the Belarus presidential elections, stating that ‘the torture or inhuman and degrading treatment was intentional as it was wide-spread and systematic as well as targeted at the opposing protesters … It followed a systematic and wide-spread pattern including Minsk and other cities’. The report finds it particularly concerning that those responsible for well-documented cases of torture and ill-treatment have not been held accountable, thereby confirming allegations of general impunity.

Demonstrations continue to take place each Sunday, with thousands of people arrested each month. According to reports, on 12 November, undercover police killed opposition supporter, Raman Bandarenka.

European Union position

The EU has expressed solidarity with Belarusians, condemned the violence against protesters and called for the immediate release of detained persons and for an inclusive national dialogue. The EU and its institutions do not recognise the election results and state that Lukashenka lacks any democratic legitimacy.

The European Council introduced sanctions against individuals responsible for repression and election falsification. As of 6 November, Lukashenka has been included in the list of officials subject to travel bans and asset freezes.

Since August 2020, the European Parliament has frequently invited representatives of the Coordination Council to discuss the situation of Belarusians. Svetlana Tsikhanouskaya met President Sassoli on 21 September, the day on which the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs recommended the recognition of the Coordination Council ‘as the legitimate representative of the people demanding democratic change and freedom in Belarus’.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘The 2020 Sakharov Prize laureate: The democratic opposition in Belarus‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© chrisdorney / Adobe Stock

Joseph Biden, who takes office as the next US President on 20 January 2021 has started to announce nominations for key posts in his Administration. Most commentators outside the US, as well as many at home, hope that a Biden presidency will seek to restore a rules-based international order, which has been badly shaken by his predecessor, Donald Trump. Although pundits warn against expecting miracles from the new President in international policy, as the national agenda is likely to be his top priority initially – notably the fight against the coronavirus pandemic, efforts to restore economic growth and the need to try to heal deep divisions in American society – there are still high hopes that Biden will bring the US back into the international community’s pursuit of peace and security, development goals and fighting climate change.

This note offers links to recent commentaries, studies and reports from major international think tanks on issues related to US elections and President Biden’s expected policies in a number of areas.

Are Europe’s leaders ready for a Biden presidency?
Carnegie Europe, November 2020

Europe’s high expectations for a U.S. President Joe Biden
Carnegie Europe, November 2020

A strategic Europe after the 2020 U.S. Election?
Carnegie Europe, November 2020

Picking up the pieces: America after the 2020 Election
Bertelsmann Stiftung, November 2020

Sharp divisions on vote counts, as Biden gets high marks for his post-election conduct
Pew Research Center, November 2020

America is exceptional in the nature of its political divide
Pew Research Center, November 2020

President Biden: Good for Europe, but not a miracle-worker
Centre for European Reform, November 2020

President Biden: Don’t expect miracles, Europe
Centre for European Reform, November 2020

2021 can be a climate breakthrough, but Biden and Europe need to talk
Bruegel, November 2020

Biden’s win creates a new global trade challenge: Delivering results
European Centre for International Political Economy, November 2020

Irish-American: Biden’s heritage and transatlantic relations
European Centre for International Political Economy, November 2020

Putting America’s civic infrastructure on the Biden-Harris agenda
Rand Corporation, November 2020

U.S. versus Chinese powers of persuasion
Rand Corporation, November 2020

L’élection de Biden-Harris: Un répit en vue de quoi?
Institut français des relations internationales, November 2020

From Brussels with love: How the European Union can win the battle of narratives
European Council on Foreign Relations, November 2020

Building back a better transatlantic alliance
European Council on Foreign Relations, November 2020

Second acts: How Europe can renew the transatlantic partnership
European Council on Foreign Relations, November 2020

Elections américaines et questions nucléaires: Quels sont les enjeux?

Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique, November 2020

Politique extérieure des États-Unis: Biden ou l’espoir du retour au multilatéralisme
Groupe de Recherche et d’Information sur la Paix et la Sécurité, November 2020

Are we witnessing the dawn of a new global politics?
Friends of Europe, November 2020

All change in the White House, but in the transatlantic relationship too?
Friends of Europe, November 2020

A memo to President-elect Biden: Don’t coddle white racial anxieties
Brookings Institution, November 2020

President-elect Biden: Want to reduce polarization? Modernize federal rural policy
Brookings Institution, November 2020

‘All in’ climate diplomacy: How a Biden-Harris administration can leverage city, state, business, and community climate action
Brookings Institution, November 2020

Post-election town hall: Possible policy impacts on the social determinants of health
Brookings Institution, November 2020

President-Elect Biden on foreign policy
Council on Foreign Relations, November 2020

Transition 2021: What foreign policy challenges await President-Elect Biden?
Council on Foreign Relations, November 2020

Revitalizing the State Department and American diplomacy
Council on Foreign Relations, November 2020

One America, two nations
Council on Foreign Relations, November 2020

Election security 2020
Council on Foreign Relations, November 2020

Biden should call for an early G20 Summit
Center for Strategic and International Studies, November 2020

What will Biden do?
Center for Strategic and International Studies, November 2020

Biden can engage Southeast Asia and still promote good governance
Center for Strategic and International Studies, November 2020

A Biden climate policy for agri-food systems must confound traditional policy categories if it is going to work
Center for Strategic and International Studies, November 2020

Neustart für das transatlantische verhältnis
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, November 2020

Five key learnings for the Biden administration
Chatham House, November 2020

Five key questions on Biden’s Middle East policy
Chatham House, November 2020

A new US–UK democratic agenda could be on the horizon
Chatham House, November 2020

US Midterm elections: What the results mean
Chatham House, November 2020

Renewing transatlantic strategy on Iran
Atlantic Council, November 2020

The Trump administration can still seal a trade deal with India—and cement a legacy
Atlantic Council, November 2020

Trump’s plan to bring US troops home by Inauguration Day
Atlantic Council, November 2020

The Trump administration is right: On civilian oversight of special operations
Atlantic Council, November 2020

The effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on US and European commitment to the multilateral economic order
Istituto Affari Internazionali, November 2020

The aftermath: American power after Covid-19
Istituto Affari Internazionali, November 2020

Covid19 and the foreign policy perceptions of US public and elites
Istituto Affari Internazionali, November 2020

2020: The American evolution that wasn’t
Istituto Affari Internazionali, November 2020

Act as if it does not matter who wins
Egmont, November 2020

No, the Presidential Election was not rigged by hacked voting machines
Cato Institute, November 2020

How Biden and Xi can keep the new Cold War from turning hot
Hoover Institution, November 2020

Recommendations for the Biden administration on engaging with religious communities
Center for American Progress, November 2020

The hyper-rhetorical presidency
American Enterprise Institute, November 2020

Turning the tide: How to rescue Transatlantic relations
EU Institute for Security Studies, October 2020

The Federal Election Reform Commission must no longer be ignored
Heritage Foundation, November 2020

Biden’s victory means cautious optimism in Paris
German Marshall Fund, November 2020

With a Biden administration, Poland expects continuity in security and a return of democracy
German Marshall Fund, November 2020

The Federal Government Owns 92 % of student debt: Will Biden wipe it out?
Institute for Policy Studies, November 2020

Should Joe Biden forgive student loan debt?
Pacific Research Institute, November 2020

Read this briefing on ‘Post-Trump: Great expectations of Biden‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Martin Russell,

© oatawa / Adobe Stock

In the middle of the coronavirus pandemic, World Aids Day on 1 December is a timely reminder of the need for continued efforts to tackle other global health problems. Since the first cases were recorded in 1981, the disease has claimed 33 million lives worldwide. New infections and deaths are steadily declining but there are still huge disparities and challenges to meeting the UN target of ending the epidemic by 2030.

Global and regional trends

HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) is transmitted through blood, semen, as well as vaginal and other bodily secretions. Infections spread through sexual intercourse, sharing of needles by drug users, and sometimes through blood transfusions. Mothers can also infect their children during pregnancy and breastfeeding. If left untreated, HIV attacks the body’s immune system, and may lead to AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome). Due to their loss of immunity, most AIDS sufferers die within a few years due to contracting other severe diseases such as tuberculosis and cancer.

HIV is thought to have originated among central African primates. Human infections were first identified in the United States in 1981. In most parts of the world, the epidemic reached its peak around the turn of the century. In southern Africa, the worst affected region, AIDS caused average life expectancy to plunge by nearly 20 years in some countries. Since then, both infection and death rates have declined steadily. In 2019, there were an estimated 690 000 AIDS-related deaths (-59 % compared to the peak in 2005) and 1.7 million new infections (-39 % down on the 1999 peak). The total number of people living with HIV is 38 million.

HIV is most prevalent in eastern and southern Africa, where nearly 7 % of adults are living with the virus. This percentage reaches over 20 % in southern African countries such as Eswatini (27 %), Lesotho (23 %) and Botswana (21 %). However, this is also the region that has seen the biggest progress in terms of curbing new infections (-52 % since 2009). Though starting from a much lower level, new infections in eastern Europe and central Asia are rising fast (+75 %). Certain groups are much more severely affected than others. Although they only represent a small share of the population, gay men, drug users and sex workers, together with their clients and partners, account for the majority of new infections in all regions except for eastern and southern Africa. Although infection rates are mostly similar for men and women, in many African countries young women are far more likely to catch the virus than men.

Progress towards curbing the epidemic

The sustainable development goals adopted by the UN in 2015 envisage ending the HIV/AIDS epidemic by 2030. In 2014, UN agency UNAIDS set three intermediate goals for 2020: at least 90 % of people with the virus should be aware of their status; of these, 90 % should receive treatment, with virus levels in 90 % of patients receiving treatment reduced to a level where no infection is possible. The combined effect of achieving these three targets would be to cut infection rates by three-quarters. Southern and eastern Africa, the worst affected region, has come close to achieving these targets (87 %; 83 %; 93%), helping to explain the dramatic drop in infection rates, while the eastern Europe/central Asia region is one of the worst performers (70 %; 63 %; 93 %), figures that again correlate with sharply rising infections.

No cure exists for HIV/AIDS, but it can be managed as a chronic disease through antiretroviral treatment (ART), which reduces concentrations of the virus in the body to a level where it no longer threatens the patient’s life or infects others. The same drugs can also be taken preventively by persons who are at high risk of exposure (such as sex workers). ART is expensive, not least due to the fact that it has to be continued through a patient’s entire remaining life, but also highly effective; the experience of Brazil, which has provided ART free of charge since 1996, demonstrates that universally available treatment is affordable even for middle-income countries. However, 13 million HIV-positive people (one-third of those infected) do not yet have access to it. Prevention also plays an important part, for example, sex education, encouraging the use of condoms, and circumcision for men – which reduces the risk of female to male infection by half.

There are still many challenges

UNAIDS points to a funding shortfall: in 2019, US$18.6 billion was available to tackle the disease in developing countries, 7 % less than in 2017 and 30 % less than the UN target of US$26.2 billion. Declining funding may reflect complacency, as infection rates have been dropping in most countries. Funding will be even scarcer in 2020, with healthcare resources diverted to tackle the coronavirus pandemic. Covid-19 obstructs the fight against HIV/AIDS in other ways, for example by disrupting medical supply chains or discouraging patients from leaving home to seek treatment. The persistence of the HIV epidemic points to wider social and behavioural issues that cannot easily be addressed through drugs and funding alone. Some religious groups oppose condoms, arguing that they encourage promiscuity – an obstacle to efforts to promote safe sex. In Russia, there is strong resistance to introducing sex education in schools, while NGOs that distribute free needles and condoms to drug users are also frowned upon. Conservative attitudes are part of the reason for Russia’s high and rising infection rates. Many countries are unwilling to take steps, such as legalising prostitution or treating heroin addicts with methadone, which could protect some of the most vulnerable groups. In some Middle Eastern countries, nearly 90 % of the population has negative views of people living with HIV. Stigmatisation can discourage patients from seeking treatment, and may even result in them being denied healthcare.

Leading the global fight against the epidemic

Established in 1996, UNAIDS took over from the World Health Organization as the lead UN agency responsible for coordinating the fight against HIV/AIDS. It has played a key role in curbing the spread of the disease by raising awareness and mobilising resources. However, many observers question the value of having a separate body from the WHO, arguing for a more integrated approach that helps developing countries tackle health problems across the board; they also point out that HIV/AIDS receives a disproportionate amount of funding compared to threats such as diabetes, which claim far more lives.

Through its PEPFAR fund (US$6.9 billion in 2020), the US is the main foreign contributor to spending on HIV/AIDS in developing countries. The EU does not have a dedicated HIV/AIDS programme, but in 2019 it pledged €550 million over the next three years for the Global Fund, a UN-led partnership to tackle HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Since 2014, the EU has also allocated €220 million from the Horizon 2020 programme for HIV/AIDS-related research. In 2017, the European Parliament called for an integrated EU policy framework on HIV, tuberculosis and viral hepatitis.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘The Global HIV/AIDS epidemic‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Angelos Delivorias (1st edition),

© shane / Adobe Stock

The pricing of many financial instruments and contracts depends on the accuracy and integrity of (financial) benchmarks, i.e. indices, by reference to which the amounts payable under such financial instruments or contracts, or the value of certain financial instruments, are determined. The anticipated discontinuation of such a benchmark (LIBOR) after the end of 2021 has created fears that it could lead to disruption in the internal market, given that the Benchmarks Regulation ((EU) 2016/1011) does not provide for mechanisms to organise the orderly discontinuation of systemically important benchmarks in the EU. That is why the Commission has proposed to amend the said regulation. The Council adopted its negotiating mandate on 6 October, while the European Parliament’s Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee (ECON) adopted its report on 19 November 2020, and also voted to open trilogue negotiations with the Council.

Complete version

• Replacement benchmarks for financial benchmarks in cessation (1st edition)

Exemption of certain third country foreign exchange benchmarks and the designation of replacement benchmarks for certain benchmarks in cessation Committee responsible: Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) COM(2020) 337
24.7.2020 Rapporteurs: Caroline Nagtegaal (Renew, The Netherlands) 2020/0154(COD) Shadow rapporteurs: Luděk Niedermayer (EPP, Czechia)
Jonás Fernández (S&D, Spain)
Jörg Meuthen (ID, Germany)
Ville Niinistö (Greens/EFA, Finland)
Patryk Jaki (ECR, Poland)
José Gusmão (GUE/NGL, Portugal) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Trilogue negotiations

Written by Katarzyna Sochacka and Clare Ferguson,

© European Union 2020 – Source : EP / Daina Le Lardic

During the second November 2020 plenary session, Parliament held a number of debates with Council and the European Commission. Discussions concerned fundamental rights issues such as abortion rights in Poland, the new LGBTIQ equality strategy, and Hungarian interference in the media in Slovenia and North Macedonia. In a debate with Council and Commission, Members also discussed the forthcoming European Council meeting, on 10‑11 December 2020. Debates with the Commission included discussion of a new consumer strategy and a pharmaceutical strategy for Europe. Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borell made statements on escalating tensions in Varosha, and on the fight against impunity for crimes committed against journalists around the world, followed by a debate with Members. Members also voted, inter alia, on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers, on customs duties on certain products, on tariff quotas with Northern Ireland, as well as on a number of own-initiative reports, including on industrial policy.

Towards a more sustainable single market for business and consumers

Members approved, by large majority, an Internal Market (IMCO) Committee own-initiative report on improving the sustainability of the single market for both business and consumers, suggesting that consumers could be encouraged to make better environmental choices by ensuring a ‘right to repair’, improving guarantees and promoting better product information. Members took the opportunity to underline the need to ensure product safety and the protection of consumer rights.

Amending Budget No 9/2020: Mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund

In response to the coronavirus public health emergency in seven EU countries, as well as an earthquake in Croatia and flooding in Poland, Members voted on draft amending budget 9/2020, thereby approving the release of a total of €823.5 million from the EU Solidarity Fund to help people in the affected regions. The decision authorises the Commission to begin assessment of the requests for assistance it has received.

Foreign policy implications of the pandemic

Members debated and adopted an own-initiative report from the Foreign Affairs (AFET) Committee on the foreign policy consequences of the Covid‑19 outbreak, following a short presentation. Members underlined the need for the EU to seize the opportunity to respond to the challenges of the evolving international landscape, where both the pandemic and recent United States elections highlight the need for a stronger role in rebuilding the multilateral order and defending EU values.

Abraham Accords

Members heard and debated a statement from the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the geopolitical implications of the Abraham Accords (held over from the November I session). Parliament has a long commitment to peace in the Middle East, and (despite Palestinian Authority and Palestinian factions’ concerns), has welcomed the United States-brokered normalisation of relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Sudan.

Strengthening media freedom in the EU

Members debated, and by majority adopted, Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) own-initiative report on the deteriorating media environment in Europe and measures to strengthen media freedom, protect journalists, and tackle hate speech and disinformation in the EU. The LIBE report highlights areas where EU action could improve the situation, including: ensuring robust media freedom and pluralism, and the political and financial independence of the media; protecting (particularly investigative) journalists; and charting a course through the tension between justified freedom of expression and unjustified permissibility of hate speech, as well as disinformation. The committee proposed stronger monitoring and increased measures against misinformation, particularly on the part of digital platforms.

Istanbul Convention: A tool to tackle violence against women and girls

Partly due to the coronavirus crisis, violence against women has worsened in the EU. Parliament has consistently supported a strong stance on the issue, repeatedly calling for EU accession to the Istanbul Convention. Members heard a Commission statement on the Istanbul Convention, which sets legally binding standards on prevention of such violence. Parliament’s President underlined the EU commitment to non-violence and equality, and the Chair of the Women’s Rights & Gender Equality Committee reiterated the call for all EU countries to ratify the Convention. However, as things stand, Parliament will not be formally requested to consent to EU conclusion of the Convention until the European Court of Justice has delivered an opinion on the Convention’s compatibility with the Treaties.

Taking stock of the 2019 European elections

Members voted by large majority to adopt a Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) Committee own-initiative report proposing to strengthen the European electoral process. Welcoming the higher turnout in 2019, Members regretted however that the results do not reflect the true diversity and gender balance in Europe’s population. They also warned against foreign interference in elections and put forward a number of possible improvements to the European electoral system, such as remote voting for citizens in specific circumstances; transnational lists; and the establishment of a European Electoral Authority, among other things. Furthermore, Members suggest a reflection on the Spitzenkandidaten process.

Opening of trilogue negotiations

Members confirmed three mandates for negotiations: two from the Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) Committee, on a proposal for a regulation on exemption of certain third-country foreign exchange benchmarks and the designation of replacement benchmarks for certain benchmarks in cessation; and on a proposal for a regulation on EU recovery prospectus and targeted adjustments for financial intermediaries to help the recovery from the Covid‑19 pandemic. The third mandate approved, from the Fisheries (PECH) Committee, concerns a proposal for a regulation on conservation and enforcement measures applicable in the Regulatory Area of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Plenary round-up – November II 2020‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Costica Dumbrava,

© tanaonte / Adobe Stock

In an effort to tackle the second wave of the coronavirus outbreak, EU Member States started reinstating restrictions on the freedom of movement in October 2020. To prevent a new series of severe and uncoordinated restrictions at countries’ internal borders similar to those of March this year, there have been renewed efforts at the EU level to establish a coordinated approach towards coronavirus-related restrictions on movement.

While the focus is now on the ongoing health crisis, concerns about the functioning of the Schengen area of free movement predate the pandemic. As recent terrorist attacks in Europe remind us, scant progress and unfinished reforms in the area of migration, external borders and security both weaken and threaten to undo the important achievements of Schengen cooperation.

This briefing discusses the key steps taken by the EU to develop a common response to the above challenges and thus to safeguard the Schengen area. It provides an overview of the main restrictions on movement imposed by EU and Schengen countries as of 25 November 2020. Since contact-tracing apps have been promoted as a key tool in combating the pandemic and restoring freedom of movement, this briefing also provides an overview of the existing coronavirus applications in the EU Member States and their interoperability across borders.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Towards a common EU approach to lifting coronavirus-related restrictions on freedom of movement‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Philip Boucher,

With the launch of its Centre for Artificial Intelligence (C4AI), the appointment of a new International Advisory Board (INAB) focusing on AI, and a partnership on AI with the OECD, STOA is intensifying its activities on artificial intelligence.

Centre for Artificial Intelligence

Eva Kaili (EP), Margrethe Vestager (EC) and Anthony Gooch (OECD) at the STOA workshop on the Future of Artificial Intelligence for Europe ©European Union (EP)

STOA launched its Centre for Artificial Intelligence (C4AI) to underscore its determination to extend and diversity its activities in this crucial field. A decision of the STOA Panel established the C4AI on 19 December 2019, and the high-level STOA workshop ‘The Future of Artificial Intelligence for Europe‘, launched the centre on 29 January 2020, at the European Parliament in Brussels.

The C4AI produces studies, organises public events and acts as a platform for dialogue and information exchange on AI-relevant topics within the Parliament and beyond, within the context of STOA and based on decisions of the STOA Panel. In particular, it provides expertise on the possibilities and limitations of AI and its implications from an ethical, legal, economic and societal perspective. Through these activities, C4AI aims to contribute to the quality and coherence of discussion and policy-making as the EU seeks to coordinate its efforts and influence global AI standard-setting.

International Advisory Board

STOA and its C4AI are eager to cooperate and exchange with stakeholders and partners within the Parliament, the global parliamentary community and beyond. To this end, a new STOA International Advisory Board (INAB) is being established for the remainder of this parliamentary term (2020‑2024). The Board will provide STOA with strategic advice about the future direction of its work on science and technology in general, with an emphasis on AI and the activities of the C4AI, increasing STOA’s outreach capacity and widening its pool of high-level expertise. The STOA Panel remains responsible for initiating and coordinating its activities. So far, 21 world-renowned personalities from academia, international organisations, the private sector and think tanks have already agreed to join the board.

Partnership with OECD Global Parliamentary Network

STOA and the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS), are entering into a partnership with the OECD’s Global Parliamentary Network (GPN), following an agreement during the Panel meeting of 11 September 2020. The GPN is a hub for legislators and officials from parliaments around the world to share experiences, identify good practices and foster international legislative co-operation. It includes a Parliamentary Group on Artificial Intelligence, and benefits from proximity with the OECD’s AI Policy Observatory and Global Partnership on AI. The partnership between STOA and the GPN will be launched at a joint event on 2 December 2020.

Follow us on Twitter at @EP_ScienceTech to stay informed about our activities.

Your opinion counts for us. To let us know what you think, get in touch via stoa@europarl.europa.eu.

Further information

• STOA publications on artificial intelligence