European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

Written by Alessandro D’Alfonso (1st edition),

© weyo / Adobe Stock

The InvestEU programme is a single investment support mechanism for the 2021-2027 period. It would bring together various EU financial instruments for internal policies that are currently supported by different funds and programmes of the EU budget. In May 2020, the European Commission put forward a revised proposal for InvestEU, reflecting a partial agreement reached by Parliament and Council in 2019 and incorporating new elements to take account of the impact of the coronavirus crisis. On 4 November 2020, the Council adopted its partial mandate for the interinstitutional negotiations. Parliament adopted a mandate for negotiations during the November I 2020 plenary part-session. The structuring of InvestEU in policy windows and its contribution to the European Green Deal and a just transition are among the points to be agreed by the co-legislators. The financial envelope of the programme depends on the outcome of the negotiations on the EU’s next multiannual financial framework.

Complete version

• InvestEU programme: The EU’s new investment support scheme (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the InvestEU programme Committee responsible: Budgets (BUDG) and Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) – jointly under Rule 58 COM(2020) 403
29.5.2020 Rapporteurs: José Manuel Fernandes (EPP, Portugal) and Irene Tinagli (S&D, Italy) 2020/0108(COD) Shadow rapporteurs: Enikő Győri (EPP, Hungary); Eider Gardiazabal Rubial (S&D, Spain); Ondřej Kovařík (Renew, Czechia); Nils Torvalds (Renew, Finland); Valentino Grant (ID, Italy); Joachim Kuhs (ID, Germany); Kira Marie Peter-Hansen (Greens/EFA, Denmark); Monika Vana (Greens/EFA, Austria); Bogdan Rzońca (ECR, Poland); Johan Van Overtveldt (ECR, Belgium); Petros Kokkalis (GUE/NGL, Greece); Dimitrios Papadimoulis (GUE/NGL, Greece) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Trilogue negotiations

Written by Ralf Drachenberg and Izabela Bacian,

© Adobe Stock

Initially planned to discuss only the EU response to the coronavirus pandemic, recent developments required EU leaders to dedicate attention to other issues during the European Council video-conference meeting of 19 November 2020. In this context, they addressed notably the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), specifically the rule-of-law conditionality linked to the MFF, and the fight against terrorism. While the vast majority of Member States agree with the compromise reached between negotiators from the Council and the European Parliament on the issue of rule-of-law conditionality, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia are currently not able to support it. The President of the European Council, Charles Michel, indicated that discussions to find an acceptable solution for all would continue. The exchange of information on the coronavirus pandemic focused in particular on the development of vaccines, ensuring that they would be available and affordable to all EU citizens, and on the coordination of the exit from the second-wave restrictions. The European Council agreed once more to further strengthen coordination of action against the coronavirus pandemic.

1. European Council meeting Coronavirus pandemic

The European Council meeting of 15-16 October had already agreed to intensify overall coordination, both at EU level and between Member States, in respect of the coronavirus crisis, and to regularly exchange information on the situation by video-conference. EU leaders continued their discussions on testing and vaccination as well as on the lifting of restrictive measures, following the peak of the second wave of infections. Discussions focused on developing a common approach on the use of rapid antigen tests – complementary to PCR tests (which require laboratory analysis) – allowing for mutual recognition of the tests and their results across the EU Member States. The European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, stressed that reaching 80 % sensitivity in detection of the virus would be part of the necessary performance criteria for rapid antigen tests. Ahead of the meeting, the Commission had adopted a recommendation on the use of rapid antigen tests for the diagnosis of Covid-19. Progress on a digital passenger locator form was also made, with two Member States already part of the pilot project and 12 more expected to join soon. The roundtable discussion included an exchange on national testing strategies.

Regarding vaccines, Charles Michel welcomed the conclusion of advance purchase agreements with five pharmaceutical companies (BioNTech, CureVac, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson and Sanofi-GSK) and stressed that national vaccination plans needed to be in place to ensure vaccines are made available and affordable to all EU citizens. Logistical challenges such as storage, transport and the number of doses represent just some of the challenges ahead; a massive communication effort to facilitate the uptake of the vaccine by EU citizens will also need to be carried out. President von der Leyen also announced that Team Europe – that is the Member States together with the European Commission – have provided €800 million to COVAX, the international facility bringing together 190 countries to make sure that low- and middle-income countries will have access to future vaccines. President Michel underlined the EU’s commitment to COVAX, and recalled that the vaccines should be a common public good, accessible to all and universally available.

Finally, President Michel cautioned against the premature lifting of restrictive measures. The exit from lockdown should be ‘gradual and regressive’. The Commission will soon make a proposal for a coordinated approach to lifting the containment measures. President Michel stressed that the coronavirus has had a devastating human cost, and that behind all the numbers and statistics lie human lives, which is why EU leaders remained united in their fight in combatting the pandemic.

Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) and rule-of-law conditionality

Although not in their initial plans, EU leaders also addressed the MFF for the 2021-27 period, and in particular rule-of-law conditionality (i.e. the proposed general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget). The rule-of-law conditionality regime forms part of the package of measures concerning the 2021-27 MFF, also including Next Generation EU (NGEU) and the own resources decision (for a detailed overview, see EPRS, Negotiations on the next MFF and the EU recovery instrument). However, the approval procedures for the different elements vary, notably concerning the role of the European Parliament and the majority needed for approval in the Council (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Main elements of the MFF package and the legislative procedures applicable

Main elements of the MFF package and the legislative procedures applicable

As holder of the rotating Presidency-in-office of the Council of the EU, the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, updated her colleagues on the state of play in the discussions between the Parliament and Council on the MFF and NGEU recovery package. On 5 November 2020, the two institutions reached a provisional agreement on rule-of-law budget conditionality, and then on 10 November they reached a political agreement on the MFF. The different legislative elements of the next MFF and NGEU were presented to the Council for approval on 16 November. While the vast majority of Member States agreed with the compromise on the table, Poland and Hungary withheld their consent to launch written procedure to adopt the Own Resources Decision. They chose to block this part of the package, with which they have no specific issue, because it requires unanimity in Council for its adoption, while the rule of law conditionality, where their real concern lies, is decided by qualified majority voting.

At the General Affairs Council on 17 November, numerous participants underlined the seriousness of the situation and called for a responsible approach from all sides against the backdrop of the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic, which made EU programmes and financial support particularly important for citizens, businesses and economic recovery in general. Subsequently, the Slovenian Prime Minister, Janez Jansa, also criticised the rule of law budget conditionality.

Ursula von der Leyen stressed that the Commission supported the agreement found between the co-legislators. Both Presidents Michel and von der Leyen indicated that they ‘will continue to find an acceptable solution for all’, with the rotating Presidency leading the efforts. Charles Michel announced that he would hold consultations in different formats ahead of the December European summit, stressing that nobody under-estimated the seriousness of the situation.

Fight against terrorism

EU leaders expressed their solidarity with France and Austria following the terrorist attacks of recent months, notably in Paris, Nice and Vienna. They stated that they ‘will never shy away from defending our values and promoting our freedoms’. In that context, they stressed the importance of looking at the role of online platforms and of setting a stricter framework.

On 29 October, the European Council had already issued a joint statement, in which it condemned ‘in the strongest possible terms’ the attacks in France, calling them ‘attacks on our shared values’. Additionally, a video-conference, which focused on a European response to the terrorist attacks and included the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, the French President, Emmanuel Macron, the Austrian Chancellor, Sebastian Kurz, and the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Mark Rutte as well as the Presidents of the European Council and of the European Commission, took place on 10 November 2020. It was agreed that ‘an uncompromising stance to uphold the free and democratic order will be taken in the fight against terrorism’. EU leaders urged the acceleration of progress on important European actions to fight terrorism, including the planned entry-exit system to monitor travel across the external borders of the Schengen area.

On 13 November, the fifth anniversary of the 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, EU home affairs ministers issued a statement on the recent terrorist attacks in Europe. Ministers pledged to protect Europe’s societies and its people, to uphold common values and the European way of life as well as to safeguard our pluralist societies. They recalled that the security structures and legal framework in the Member States and at European Union level had been strengthened over the past two decades, but indicated that additional efforts and resources were needed. The European Council will revert to this issue in December.

EU-UK negotiations

While EU-UK negotiations on a future partnership were not discussed during the 19 November meeting, a number of leaders, including the Belgian Prime Minister, Alexander De Croo, Dutch Prime Minister, Mark Rutte, and French President, Emmanuel Macron, called for an acceleration of preparations for a ‘no-deal’ scenario. Negotiations between the EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, and British counterpart, David Frost, had intensified over the last few weeks; however, they had to be interrupted on Thursday 19 November, due to a case of coronavirus reported in Barnier’s team. Negotiations will continue remotely, however there is not yet agreement in the main areas of divergence between the two sides. With Barnier self-isolating, Ilze Juhansone, the Secretary-General of the Commission, informed the Member States’ EU ambassadors about the state of play in the negotiations the day after the leaders met. With no sign of agreement yet, time is running out for the ratification of any agreement before the end of the year.

2. The European Council and the video-conference working method

This meeting was the eighth video-conference meeting of the European Council’s members since the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic. The video-conference working method was introduced because of the impossibility of meeting in person.

Chart 2: European Council meetings in 2020

In 2020, the pandemic impacted not only the format of European Council meetings, but also their frequency. While the Lisbon Treaty requires the European Council to meet at least four times a year (twice every six months), over the years, it has in reality met a lot more often than that; since 2014, it has met between eight and nine times every year, and 12 times so far in 2020. Both its role of crisis manager, and the ease with which video-conference meetings can be organised, explain the increased frequency in 2020.

The experience over the past eight months has shown the advantages and limitations of the video-conference format for European Council meetings. On the one hand, this format is not well suited to negotiations, which traditionally rely heavily on break-out sessions between individual actors or groups in order to reach an agreement. Moreover, while increased coordination between EU Heads of State or Government is generally positive, the fact that many of these discussions do not include the European Parliament’s President and/or are not the subject of a report to Parliament by the European Council’s President, as is required for formal meetings, limits the Parliament’s oversight role. On the other hand, the increased frequency of European Council meetings using the video-conference format, gives EU leaders the opportunity to discuss other pressing issues at Heads of State or Government level, which would either have had to wait until later or be dealt with at a lower level. Several European Council video-conference meetings, which were initially intended to deal solely with EU coordination measures to address the coronavirus pandemic, were in fact also used to raise ‘burning’ or ad hoc issues. President Michel stressed the usefulness of holding regular video-conferences on the coronavirus pandemic in allowing EU leaders to remain seized of the situation across Europe and keep each other informed on the common challenges they face.

Read this briefing on ‘Outcome of the European Council video-conference of 19 November 2020‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Rosamund Shreeves

Orange the World: Fund, Respond, Prevent, Collect!

The International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women on 25 November is a time to take stock of what has been done to root out this violation of women’s and girl’s human rights. It is also a moment to identify where to improve legislation, policy and practice on the ground to ensure that all women can live free from violence and insecurity. This year, the focus is very much on the Covid‑19 pandemic, its appalling impact on levels of violence against women – particularly domestic violence – and what it revealed about the state of support structures for victims in the European Union (EU).

In March 2020, as governments across the world began to impose mandatory lockdowns on their populations to curb the spread of coronavirus, the United Nations warned that the pandemic could lead to an increase in levels of domestic violence and a decrease in the ability of service providers to respond to cases and support victims. In Europe, many actors raised the alarm, including the European Women’s Lobby, the Council of Europe’s Secretary General and Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence, the EU’s Commissioner for Equality, the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) and the European Parliament’s Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (FEMM).

Even in ‘normal times’, domestic violence is a considerable but under-reported problem, as data from the EU’s Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) and Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) show. Past epidemics were clearly associated with increased levels of violence against women and children and there are many reasons why quarantines in particular can increase the risks of domestic violence and abuse. They oblige victims to spend more time with perpetrators in circumstances where the confinement itself, fear of illness and anxiety over jobs and income tend to exacerbate tensions and problematic behaviours. Victims are more likely to be isolated from support networks, particularly where perpetrators capitalise on restrictions to exert power and control. Perpetrators may also monitor use of telephones and computers more closely, giving victims fewer opportunities to contact helplines and other support services. It is often difficult for victims to leave a violent or abusive partner, but quarantines can reduce avenues of escape still further by making it more difficult to access shelters and shrinking financial independence. Victims may also be afraid of becoming infected if they move out of the home. Shelters and support services are themselves likely to be under pressure and unable to operate normally due to the distancing measures and redeployment of resources to deal with the health emergency. Legal proceedings needed to issue barring and protection orders and evict perpetrators from the home may be interrupted. Any support for men who have already been violent or controlling towards their partners before a quarantine, or who may become so due to the situation, may also be reduced.

By April 2020, UN Secretary General, António Guterres, was signalling that lockdowns were indeed linked to a ‘horrifying global surge in domestic violence’ directed towards women and girls. In the EU, victim support organisations, police forces and governments began to release figures. Some countries saw sharp increases in the numbers of women reporting incidents. In France, reports of domestic violence rose by 30 % in the first 11 days of the country’s lockdown. In Spain, calls to the 016 helpline increased by 31 % from 14 March (when the lockdown began) to 15 April 2020, compared with the same period in 2019, while online consultations increased still more substantially (by 443.5 %) in the same period. In other countries, reports to helplines decreased. For example, in Italy, the largest domestic violence helpline reported that calls fell by 55 % to 496 in the first two weeks of March, compared with 1 104 in the same period in 2019. However, a parliamentary committee cautioned that this reflected added difficulties in reporting and seeking help. Findings from the United Kingdom and Germany illustrate why this can be the case. In the UK, the nationwide domestic violence helpline reported that during the first lockdown, perpetrators made increasing use of technology such as smart locks, webcams, social media or sharing revenge porn to intimidate and control partners. In Germany, 2 % of the 3 800 women who responded to a survey said that, during the strict lockdown period between 22 April and 8 May 2020, they had been unable to leave their home without their partner’s permission and 4.6 % reported that their partners had controlled their contacts with others, including their digital communication. The survey also illustrates the reality beneath the figures: around 3 % of the women were subjected to beatings or other forms of physical violence by a partner and 3.6 % were raped. The risk of all forms of domestic violence and abuse was significantly higher when women were self-isolating or when they or their partner had lost work or were in financial difficulty. At the most extreme, the UK Parliament heard evidence that the number of suspected domestic abuse killings doubled in the first three weeks of the lockdown compared with the same period over the past 10 years.

Simultaneously, the pandemic has created challenges for organisations supporting survivors of domestic violence. Reports to the Council of Europe show that domestic violence shelters in some areas stopped all admissions because they were unsure how to manage the risk of infection, while others privileged online or telephone support, leaving women at risk from their abusers. European and national women’s organisations have flagged gaps in essential services before the pandemic and limitations caused by the pandemic, including drastic cuts in funding for specialist support services in some countries. This is particularly worrying in view of the likelihood of increased demand for emergency intervention, counselling and therapy in the months after the crisis passes.

Against the backdrop of a resurgence in Covid‑19 cases in many EU countries and the prospect of further lockdowns, what lessons can be learned from what happened earlier in the year? This month, the EIGE and Parliament’s FEMM committee have both issued analyses of the emerging data on violence against women during the pandemic, how support services have adapted, and responses from governments, with policy recommendations for future action. The two studies for Parliament, on the gendered impact of the Covid‑19 crisis and the added value of the Istanbul Convention, found that all EU Member States adopted some promising measures. Nearly all conducted awareness-raising campaigns on where to get help. Some developed temporary help points in supermarkets and pharmacies or innovative apps or online means of alerting the police. Some classified hotlines and shelters as essential services, enabling them to continue to provide assistance. Some provided additional funding for these services or expanded capacity by converting empty tourist accommodation into shelters. A few countries introduced comprehensive action plans. However, initial findings from EIGE’s ongoing research into what the EU and the Member States can do to protect women more effectively from gender-based violence during crises show that support systems for victims of gender-based violence are shaky in the majority of EU countries. No EU country had a disaster plan in place to deal with domestic violence. The research for Parliament demonstrates that ratification of the Istanbul Convention – one of the EU’s priorities for preventing and combating violence against women – remains an important way forward. The Convention has contributed directly to the creation of services for victims in a number of countries, while countries that have ratified the Convention implemented more measures during the pandemic than those that have not, suggesting greater political awareness and readiness to respond to violence against women. Parliament will hear an update on progress towards EU accession to the Convention and hold a debate on violence against women at its plenary session on 25 November 2020.

Related EPRS publications:

The Istanbul Convention: A tool to tackle violence against women and girls (FR, DE) (update, November 2020)

Violence against women in the EU: State of play (FR) (update November 2020)

Written by Issam Hallak,

© niroworld / Adobe Stock

On 9 September 2020, the United Kingdom (UK) government tabled a bill in the House of Commons which would govern the country’s internal market after the Brexit transition period ends. It aims to allow goods and services to flow freely between the four jurisdictions of the UK – England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – replacing the rules now in place through membership of the EU’s single market.

Certain parts of this UK Internal Market Bill are particularly controversial, as they explicitly contravene the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland attached to the Withdrawal Agreement (WA) that was ratified in January 2020. First, the bill provides that the UK government may authorise Northern Ireland businesses not to complete exit summary declarations when sending goods to Great Britain, thereby breaching the Union Customs Code applicable to NI. The bill would also allow the UK government to interpret, dis-apply or modify the application of the State aid rules of the European Union, which are applicable to UK measures that affect trade between Northern Ireland and the EU. Last but not least, the bill provides that UK regulations in these areas will have effect notwithstanding their incompatibility with relevant domestic or international law, including the Withdrawal Agreement.

The reaction of the European Commission to the bill was immediate, calling for an extraordinary meeting of the EU-UK Joint Committee, which was held the following day, 10 September. On 1 October, the Commission sent a letter of formal notice to the UK for breaching its obligations under the WA, marking the beginning of an infringement process against the UK. As the UK did not reply by the end of October, the Commission may now proceed with the process, sending a Reasoned Opinion to the UK. Meanwhile, the bill has passed third reading in the House of Commons, even if in the House of Lords the government has been heavily defeated, with amendments removing the controversial clauses. While the government has indicated its intention to re-table the clauses when the bill returns to the Commons in December, it would be open to it to no longer press for their inclusion, if and when agreement is reached in the ongoing negotiations on the future EU-UK relationship.

Read the complete briefing on ‘UK Internal Market Bill and the Withdrawal Agreement‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

© Adobe Stock

The European Parliament regularly receives enquiries from citizens about artificial intelligence.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a technology that combines machine-learning techniques, robotics and automated decision-making systems. It is central to the digital transformation of society and it has become a priority for the European Union (EU). On the one hand, AI could have a positive impact for society and the economy, in healthcare or in the transport sector for example. On the other hand, it entails a number of potential risks for EU citizens’ fundamental rights that may have negative consequences. Against this background, the EU aims at fostering and regulating AI, while taking both threats and opportunities into account.

European Parliament position

In its February 2020 resolution on a comprehensive European industrial policy on AI and robotics, the European Parliament stressed that AI will increase productivity and output and, even though some jobs will be replaced, new jobs will also be created. The use of robotics and AI would improve working conditions, as it ‘should also reduce human exposure to harmful and hazardous conditions’. Moreover, the resolution highlighted the strategic sectors in which AI could bring an added value in the general public interest, such as health, energy and transport.

In October 2020, the European Parliament adopted three resolutions on what AI rules should include with regards to ethics, intellectual property rights and liability, and called for a harmonised approach at the EU level. Furthermore, the resolutions stated that the AI technologies should be ‘human-centric and human-made’ and should not cause any harm to individuals, society or the environment.

First, in its resolution on the ethical aspects of AI, the European Parliament put forward recommendations about the ethical principles needed for the new legal framework, which must be ‘values-based’ and built on safety, transparency and accountability. Moreover, it highlighted the advantages of AI application, for instance with regard to the internal market, transport, defence and green transition. However, AI technologies ‘must be tailored to human needs in line with the principle whereby their development, deployment and use should always be at the service of human beings’.

Second, the resolution on intellectual property rights called on the Commission to carry out an impact assessment regarding the protection of intellectual property rights in the context of AI development. Furthermore, it highlighted the benefits of AI development. For instance, AI could help in the fight against ‘deep fakes’ through the verification of facts and information. However, the European Parliament called for further clarification of the protection of data and for a common AI legislation to avoid massive litigation that might affect aspects such as traffic safety. The European Parliament also specified that AI technologies should not have legal personality and that only humans have the ownership of intellectual property rights.

Finally, in the resolution on a civil liability regime for AI, the European Parliament called for the adoption of a horizontal and harmonised legal framework for civil liability claims, which would ‘prevent potential misuses of AI-systems’. The resolution addressed some of the key aspects of this framework, such as the liability of the operator, insurance, and different liability rules for different risks. For instance, it proposed that those operating high-risk AI should be strictly liable for any resulting damage, material and immaterial harm.

In June 2020, the European Parliament decided to set up a new Special Committee on Artificial Intelligence in a Digital Age (AIDA) to assess the impact of AI, investigate its challenges, analyse the approach of non-EU countries and define common EU objectives in the medium- and long-term.

European Commission and AI

The European Commission has established its policy on artificial intelligence through a series of documents. In a 2018 communication, the European Commission set out an EU approach to AI addressing the socio-economic, ethical and legal aspects. In April 2019, based on the idea that trust is a prerequisite to ensuring a human-centric approach, the European Commission published non-binding guidelines on ethics in AI, which set out seven key requirements that AI systems should meet. In addition, the Commission highlighted in a communication that European values should be the core requirements for a trustworthy AI.

Furthermore, in a February 2020 White Paper on Artificial Intelligence: a European approach to excellence and trust, the Commission highlighted the need for a coordinated approach and proposed policy options for a future EU regulatory framework on AI. In parallel, it also published a communication highlighting the need to evaluate the intellectual property framework to enhance access to and use of data, which is essential for training AI systems. Later in 2020, the European Commission held a public consultation on its approach on AI.

Further information

• An EU framework for artificial intelligence, European Parliamentary Research Service, At a Glance, October 2020
• The White Paper on Artificial Intelligence, European Parliamentary Research Service, Briefing, April 2020
• Artificial intelligence: challenges for EU citizens and consumers, European Parliamentary Research Service, Briefing, January 2019
• Artificial intelligence, Research from the European Parliament
• Artificial intelligence in the EU, European Parliament
• Artificial intelligence, European Commission

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

© Adobe Stock

Citizens often send messages to the President of the European Parliament (or to the institution’s public portal) expressing their views on current issues and/or requesting action from the Parliament. The Citizens’ Enquiries Unit (AskEP) within the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) looks into these issues and replies to the messages, which may sometimes be identical as part of wider public campaigns.

The President of the European Parliament has recently received a large number of messages calling on the Parliament to intervene and prevent a public consultation on the possible introduction of a digital euro by the European Central Bank. Citizens first began to write to the President on this subject in October 2020. After the European Central Bank announced that it would launch a public consultation on the potential implementation of a digital euro, citizens voiced concerns that a purely digital euro could increase the ability of authorities to control and monitor them, thereby potentially restricting their civil liberties and financial independence. However, as indicated by the European Central Bank, a digital euro would be intended to complement, but not replace, cash. The European Parliament is closely following plans regarding digital forms of payment.

Please find below the main points of the reply sent to citizens who took the time to write to the President of the European Parliament on this matter (in English and German).

Main points made in the reply in English

In a press release dated 2 October 2020, the European Central Bank (ECB) announced that the public consultation on the possible introduction of a digital euro would soon be launched. In it, the ECB stressed that a digital euro ‘would complement cash, not replace it’. Background information in this connection (plus an online registration form for taking part in the consultation exercise) can be found in the relevant section of the ECB website: A digital euro.

We would draw your attention to the fact that the ECB is independent and is not subject to instructions from the European Parliament or any other EU institution.

However, the ECB does have obligations and rights vis-à-vis other EU institutions. Accordingly, it is obliged to provide information to the parliamentary committee responsible. On 12 October 2020, for instance, in a meeting of the European Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON), ECB Executive Board Member Fabio Panetta presented the recently published report on a digital euro (currently available in English), by the Eurosystem High-Level Task Force on Central Bank Digital Currency, and subsequently discussed it with the committee Members. The Members welcomed investigations into digital forms of payment, but voiced their concerns on issues such as the inclusiveness and stability of financial systems. More information on the meeting can be found here.

Of the EU institutions, only the Commission has right of legislative initiative. Any legislation it proposed, following the consultation exercise, on the introduction of a digital euro would be subject to the ordinary legislative procedure. That means that it has to be thoroughly assessed by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. When conducting their deliberations accordingly and taking decisions, Members perform their duties freely and independently and may not be bound by any instructions or receive a binding mandate.

You can of course directly contact both Members in general and the Members of the European Parliament’s ECON committee in particular, in order to inform them of your views on this issue.

We would furthermore draw your attention to the fact that, as an EU citizen, you are entitled to submit a petition to the European Parliament on a matter which comes within the European Union’s fields of activity and which affects you directly. Further details about submitting a petition can be found via the petitions web portal of the petitions section of the European Parliament’s website.

Main points made in the reply in German

In einer Pressemitteilung vom 2. Oktober 2020 verkündete die Europäische Zentralbank (EZB) den zeitnahen Beginn des von Ihnen erwähnten öffentlichen Konsultationsverfahrens für die mögliche Einführung eines digitalen Euros. Hierbei betonte die EZB, dass ein digitaler Euro „Bargeld ergänzen, aber nicht ersetzen [würde]“. Hintergrundinformationen dazu (ebenso wie ein elektronisches Teilnahmeformular für die Konsultation) finden Sie auf der einschlägigen Website Ein digitaler Euro der EZB.

Wir möchten Sie in diesem Zusammenhang gerne darauf hinweisen, dass die EZB unabhängig und frei von Weisungen des EP sowie anderer EU-Institutionen ist.

Die EZB besitzt jedoch gewisse Verpflichtungen und Rechte anderen EU-Institutionen gegenüber. So unterliegt sie der Pflicht zur Auskunftserteilung an den für die jeweilige Sachmaterie zuständigen parlamentarischen Ausschuss. Am 12. Oktober 2020 präsentierte beispielsweise Fabio Panetta, Mitglied des Direktoriums der EZB, den neulich veröffentlichten Bericht der „Taskforce des Eurosystems zum digitalen Euro“ (zur Zeit in englischer Sprache verfügbar) im parlamentarischen Ausschuss für Wirtschaft und Währung (ECON), und diskutierte ihn anschließend mit den Abgeordneten. Die Abgeordneten des Ausschusses begrüßten die Erkundung digitaler Zahlungsformen, jedoch äußerten sie ihre Bedenken zu Themenbereichen wie allgemeine Zugänglichkeit und Stabilität der Finanzsysteme. Mehr Information zu diesem Treffen können Sie hier finden.

Sollte die Europäische Kommission als jenes Organ der EU, das das alleinige Initiativrecht im Bereich der Legislative besitzt, anschließend zur Konsultation eine Rechtsvorschrift zur Einführung eines digitalen Euros vorschlagen, so muss dieser Vorschlag zwingend das ordentliche Gesetzgebungsverfahren durchlaufen. Das bedeutet, dass er vom Europäischen Parlament und dem Rat der Europäischen Union eingehend geprüft werden muss. Hierbei sind die Abgeordneten des EP in ihren entsprechenden Beratungen und Beschlussfassungen frei und unabhängig in der Ausübung ihres Mandates und sind weder an Aufträge noch an Weisungen gebunden.

Selbstverständlich können Sie sowohl die Abgeordneten als auch die Mitglieder des parlamentarischen Ausschusses für Wirtschaft und Währung (ECON) unmittelbar kontaktieren, um ihnen Ihre Einschätzungen zu diesem Themengebiet mitzuteilen.

Darüber hinaus möchten wir Sie darauf hinweisen, dass Sie als EU-Bürger das Recht haben, beim EP eine Petition zu einem Thema einzureichen, das in den Tätigkeitsbereich der Europäischen Union fällt und Sie unmittelbar betrifft. Weitere Informationen zur Einreichung einer Petition finden Sie auf dem Petitionsportal der Webseite „Petitionen“ des EP.

Written by Vadim Kononenko,

As ‘green transitions’ become real political goals, what role can artificial intelligence (AI) play in helping to achieve them?

© Adobe Stock

While some argue that AI can potentially be useful or even indispensable in ‘green transitions’, important questions remain open. Should AI only be used in resolving specific problems (for example, intelligent pollinating robots replacing a declining bee population), or should it be employed in ‘governing’ the sustainability of complex socio-economic systems such as mobility, or food or energy supply? While the latter option is currently technically unattainable and may be ethically dubious , it marks the axis of a political debate about possible synergies between sustainability and AI.

Potential impacts and developments

In recent years, sustainability and AI have both been high on the EU’s political agenda. The European Commission has advanced in the preparation of a White Paper on AI and the European Parliament has launched a special committee on AI in the digital age (AIDA). Several significant reports have recently been adopted or are currently being debated in Parliament’s committees, including a civil liability regime for AI, a framework for ethical aspects of AI, and intellectual property rights for AI technologies. With regard to sustainability, Parliament adopted a taxonomy of ‘green’ investments in June 2020. In 2019, the Commission included the implementation of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the mandate of every Commissioner. The UN SDGs were also included in the European Semester process, as part of the European economic governance framework. In March 2019, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the EU’s implementation and delivery of the SDGs, calling on the Commission to work out a comprehensive SDG implementation strategy.

So far, these two issues – AI and sustainability – have not been linked in terms of concrete policies. However, in the context of the massive economic fallout brought about by the Covid‑19 pandemic, building a ‘sustainable and digital Europe’, promised in Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s political guidelines, remains a big challenge. Perhaps potential synergies between AI and sustainability could help the EU face this challenge?

It is instructive to put this question in the wider context of a policy debate that concerns both sustainability and AI. This debate oscillates between two images of sustainability and AI that can be described as ‘weak’ and ‘strong’.

• ‘Weak sustainability‘ means that loss of natural capital is certainly regrettable and to be avoided, but it could be substituted by man-made capital, especially if helped by technological innovation. ‘Strong sustainability’ implies that human activity and its growth should not exceed the ‘planetary boundaries’, i.e. the capacity of the planet to sustain human life.
• Similarly, there can be ‘weak’ and ‘strong AI’. The latter is usually understood as ‘superintelligence‘, for example AI systems that would eventually be able to act and make decisions without human intervention on an infinite range of complex issues.

In the long term, the role of AI in sustainability policies will depend on two factors. One factor concerns whether a stronger view on sustainability will underpin future policies. For example, even if the EU succeeds in going carbon neutral by 2050, it does not mean that all of the sustainability goals will be reached. In fact, the current UN SDGs (and by extension the EU’s own sustainability goals) have been criticised as favouring weak sustainability. Another factor has to do with the technological development of AI itself. So far it does not seem as if superintelligence will emerge any time soon, however the speed of AI development has been impressive. Whether and when such systems become technologically possible, the ultimate choice will lie in the realm of politics and ethics. It is highly unlikely that someone would advocate a ‘strong-strong’ solution – delegating the power over decision-making on sustainability issues to super-intelligent machines – but it is worthwhile to imagine possible ethical safeguards should this option ever become real.

In the near term, a more pragmatic step would be to get a better understanding of links between AI and the three main domains of sustainability: social, economic and environmental. A recent study by McKinsey for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) shows that current applications of AI can be found to a greater extent in the domain of social sustainability (such as in health and education). As to economic sustainability, the potential of AI to drive the circular economy appears to be substantial. AI can help, for example, in the development of new products, components and materials. It can also optimise logistics and inventory, and provide ‘smart management’ tools. Most importantly, AI could help tackle the negative effects of automation on employment by creating new jobs.

Finally, environmental sustainability is an area where AI has proven to be extremely helpful, with a very wide range of applications. One of the most recent discoveries made thanks to AI was the new understanding of how long it would take for global temperatures to react to a decline in man-made CO2 emissions. This temperature lag has proven to be much faster than previously thought. However, perhaps the main contribution of AI to sustainability overall is that it might provide tools for better understanding the interconnectedness of the environment, society and economy. The more AI proliferates in different sectors, the more its effects can be traced and understood with the help of machine learning. In turn, this expands our understanding of what ‘weak’ or ‘strong’ sustainability may entail in practice.

Anticipatory policy-making

The world is only beginning to understand and anticipate how AI can be used in the three domains of sustainability and what its effects might be. While China and the United States of America have been doing a lot of advanced research and development on AI in general, it is the EU that may be better placed to test the applicability of AI in the domains of sustainability. The Commission initiatives on ‘green and digital’ Europe could provide the ground for such anticipatory work. Several elements would benefit anticipatory policy-making on AI and sustainability:

Develop a common data management framework of AI uses throughout the EU sustainability agenda. As argued elsewhere, without a common EU sustainability data management framework (including collecting, sharing and analysis), the application of AI technologies will remain patchy. Data accessibility across the EU and interoperability of AI systems is an important issue.

Think systemically. The proliferation of AI in the economy, society and environment does not automatically lead to an overall improvement in sustainability. A systemic anticipatory approach would entail thinking of applying AI in complex socio-economic systems. For example, the food system would use economic, environmental and social indicators, including not just the reduction of CO2 emissions but also people’s well-being resulting from changes in their food consumption. AI could help to understand how one indicator is connected to another.

Human behaviour is key. Both using AI and caring about sustainability entails changes to human behaviour across generations. Anticipatory policies could include measures to limit the gap between generations and enhance trust in adjusting behavioural patterns.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘What if AI could help us become ‘greener’?‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘What if AI could help us become ‘greener’?’ on YouTube.

Written by Marketa Pape,

© enanuchit : Adobe Stock

International maritime transport is the backbone of the global economy. However, vessels release emissions that pollute the air and contribute significantly to global warming. As shipping is forecast to grow, reducing these emissions is urgent, in order not to undermine emissions-reducing efforts in other areas, to keep humans healthy, preserve the environment and limit climate change. Although international shipping was not explicitly mentioned in the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, efforts to make shipping cleaner and greener have since progressed.

International rules to reduce air-polluting emissions from ships have been agreed in the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Their impact, in particular the application of stricter limits for sulphur content in marine fuels since 1 January 2020, is yet to be evaluated. Parallel efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from maritime shipping have resulted in the setting of rules on collecting data on fuel oil consumption and the first collected data becoming available. In 2018, the IMO adopted an initial strategy for reducing GHG emissions, aimed at cutting shipping GHG emissions by at least 50 % by 2050, compared to 2008 levels. While concrete steps are yet to be agreed, achieving this goal will require both short-term emission-reducing measures and longer-term measures to make shipping switch to alternative fuels. Short-term guidance from the IMO is expected in 2020.

On the EU front, the European Commission announced in the European Green Deal that GHG from EU transport should be cut by 90 % by 2050 and outlined how this would involve shipping. Initial measures are to be proposed by the end of 2020.

This briefing reviews the existing international and EU rules on shipping emissions and their application, looks into the short-term measures under discussion and maps the landscape of marine fuels and technologies that could help decarbonise shipping in the long term.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Decarbonising maritime transport: The EU perspective‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘Decarbonising maritime transport: The EU perspective’ on YouTube.

Written by Nikolina Šajn,

© Natalya Lys / Adobe Stock

Household consumption in the EU has major environmental impacts, which in a number of cases exceed planetary boundaries. Two thirds of consumers in the EU realise that their consumption habits have negative effects on the environment, and the solution that they mention most often is to change consumption habits and production patterns.

However, a number of studies have shown a gap between consumers’ good intentions and their actual behaviour. This happens because sustainability is not the only thing consumers consider when choosing what to buy; they are also influenced by price, availability and convenience, habits, values, social norms and peer pressure, emotional appeal, and the feeling of making a difference. Consumers also use their consumption patterns to communicate who they are to themselves and to others. Studies on the impacts of consumption show that these are influenced mainly by people’s income.

The European Union has a number of policies that are relevant for consumers’ sustainable choices. These include environmental product requirements, information and labelling requirements, rules on product guarantees, climate legislation that attempts to build the price of CO2 emissions into production expenses, and waste legislation that makes it easier to recycle. The European Commission now plans to add a legislative initiative to empower consumers for the green transition.

The European Parliament has long been a supporter of making consumption in the EU more sustainable, and has recently called for measures to ensure that consumers are provided with transparent, comparable and harmonised product information, especially when it comes to the durability and reparability of products and their environmental footprint.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Sustainable consumption: Helping consumers make eco-friendly choices‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘Sustainable consumption: Helping consumers make eco-friendly choices’ on YouTube.

Written by Clare Ferguson,

© European Union 2019 – Source : EP/Michel CHRISTEN

Parliament’s second plenary session of November 2020 sees Members again able to speak in debates from the Parliament’s external offices in EU countries (and as has been the case since March, they can follow the debates and vote from home). The agenda naturally reflects the ongoing coronavirus situation, but also touches on other issues central to the Union that have been much in the headlines recently – the single market and media freedom. While it now seems unlikely that differences between Member States over the EU’s next long-term budget will be resolved in the coming days, if there were to be a break-through, Parliament would be ready to move quickly to add the rule of law conditionality and the long-term budget (multiannual financial framework) files to the agenda.

Everyone should have access to accurate and verified information, and a free, independent and sufficiently funded media is vital to democracy and upholding the rule of law. On Monday evening, Members are expected to debate the deteriorating media environment in Europe and what measures could best strengthen media freedom, protect journalists, and tackle hate speech and disinformation in the EU. Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) has identified six main areas where EU action could make a difference in improving the situation. These include: ensuring robust media freedom and pluralism, and the political independence of the media; protecting (particularly investigative) journalists; tackling the distortive effects of an insecure financial environment on media ethics; and charting a course through the tension between justified freedom of expression and unjustified permissibility of hate speech, as well as disinformation. The committee proposes stronger monitoring, including checks on public funding of media, as well as increased measures against misinformation, particularly on the part of digital platforms. The Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (VP/HR) will also attend the session on Tuesday afternoon to make a statement on the fight against impunity for crimes committed against journalists around the world. The Council and Commission are also expected to make statements on Hungarian interference in the media in Slovenia and North Macedonia, on Wednesday afternoon.

The plans to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 will demand an effort from every one of us. However, changing our production and consumption patterns requires a strong lead from the EU to make durability a focus of manufacturing processes. One way to achieve this is to help manufacturers to improve their products on one hand, and by enabling consumers to make sustainable choices and to repair and recycle more easily on the other. The first item on the agenda on Monday afternoon is a debate on an Internal Market (IMCO) Committee 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. In a separate debate on Tuesday morning, Members will consider representative actions to protect the collective interests of consumers. Often known as ‘collective redress’, EU proposals seek to enable consumer organisations or independent public bodies to bring actions in the name of consumers to court, to end infringements of consumer legislation and to allow compensation. This legislative proposal now needs its second reading in Parliament, on the basis of the text agreed with Council in trilogue. A statement is also expected on Monday afternoon from the European Commission on the planned post‑2020 New Consumer Agenda.

In response to the coronavirus public health emergency in seven EU countries, as well as an earthquake in Croatia and flooding in Poland, Members will vote on draft amending budget 9/2020 during Monday evening’s voting session, which would mobilise a total of €823.5 million from the EU Solidarity Fund. To help people in the affected regions, Parliament’s BUDG committee stresses the urgency of releasing the funding quickly.

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 and for its ratification by those individual Member States that have not yet done so. On Wednesday morning, Members will hear a Commission statement on the Istanbul Convention, which sets legally binding standards on prevention of such violence. 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.

Later on Monday evening, Members are expected to debate the foreign policy consequences of the Covid‑19 outbreak, following a short presentation of a Foreign Affairs (AFET) Committee report. The committee urges the EU to seize the opportunity to respond to the changes in the international landscape, following both the effects of the pandemic and the results of the recent United States election, to play a stronger role in rebuilding the multilateral order. The report suggests a new forum for liberal Western cooperation, emphasises the need for strategic autonomy, and presses for an EU global sanctions regime for human rights violations, among other proposals. Looking back to our own, European, elections of last year, on Tuesday morning Members are expected to vote on a Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) Committee report proposing to strengthen the electoral process. While turnout was higher in 2019, the report regrets that the results do not reflect the true diversity and gender balance in Europe’s population. It also raises 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, the report suggests a reflection on the Spitzenkandidaten process during the forthcoming Conference on the Future of Europe, and highlights the dangers of foreign interference in the run-up to elections.

On Tuesday afternoon, Members will hear a statement by the VP/HR on the geopolitical implications of the Abraham Accords, followed by a debate (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.

Written by Monika Kiss,

© stnazkul / Adobe Stock

Statistics and research results show that in recent decades, before the coronavirus pandemic, the EU’s labour market witnessed an increase in female employment rates. Women’s employment seems to have been more resilient than men’s to the economic and financial crisis in 2008. This was due in part to long-term developments and changes in the institutional framework, but also to women’s tendency to work in particular sectors and accept flexible working arrangements (such as part-time work or teleworking).

The coronavirus crisis, however, has had a harsher impact on women than on men when it comes to the labour market. One of the main reasons is that men tend more to work in sectors considered as essential economic activities (with the exception of healthcare), whereas women’s work often involves contact with customers and clients, making teleworking impossible. Women have also been faced with increased childcare needs, reducing their ability to work, while enjoying a lower level of social protection owing to their working arrangements.

Although EU legislation takes account of the situation of women in the labour market, and a number of legislative and non-legislative initiatives have recently been taken at EU level, a number of challenges remain. Areas where action is required include: the harmonisation of retirement schemes, to take the specific nature of women’s careers into account; better reconciliation of work and family life by means of more flexible employment arrangements; and action to address the perennial gender pay gap.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Recent trends in female employment‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘Recent trends in female employment’ on YouTube.

Written by Rosamund Shreeves and Martina Prpic,

© Artem Furman / Adobe Stock

Violence against women is a violation of human rights and a form of gender-based discrimination. Rooted in inequalities between men and women, it takes many forms. Estimates of the scale of the problem are alarming. Such violence has a major impact on victims and imposes a significant cost burden on society.

The instruments put in place by the United Nations and Council of Europe, including the latter’s ‘Istanbul Convention’, to which the EU plans to accede, are benchmarks in efforts to combat violence against women.

The EU is tackling the problem in various ways, but has no binding instrument designed specifically to protect women from violence.

Although there are similarities between national policies to combat violence against women, the Member States have adopted different approaches to the problem.

Parliament’s efforts have focused on strengthening EU policy in the area. Parliament has repeatedly called for a European Union strategy to counter violence against women, including a legally binding instrument.

Stakeholders have expressed a range of concerns, also regarding the impact of the coronavirus pandemic and the related need to expand and adapt support for victims, and have highlighted the need for a comprehensive EU political framework on eliminating violence against women. They have also launched new initiatives of their own.

This is a further update of an earlier briefing by Anna Dimitrova-Stull, of February 2014. The most recent previous edition was from November 2019.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Violence against women in the EU: State of play‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© Jon Anders Wiken / Adobe Stock

Joseph Biden, a former US Vice-President and long-time Senator with a strong interest in foreign affairs, won the US Presidential election for the Democrats, defeating the incumbent Republican President, Donald Trump. Over the past four years, Trump shook the established rules-based international order, notably by withdrawing US funding from various multilateral organisations and pulling out of various international agreements, by renegotiating trade deals, imposing provocative customs duties, and progressively reducing America’s foreign military presence. Although Trump has not yet conceded defeat, his allegations of election fraud and related attempts at litigation are widely seen as frivolous. Once Biden becomes President, the US is expected to seek to strengthen the Transatlantic alliance and revive the multilateral system, without necessarily being able to pursue any significant liberalisation of trade, given domestic political pressures and the ambiguous situation in the US Congress.

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.

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

Trump spaltet, Biden versöhnt? wer so denkt, hat die usa nicht verstanden
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, November 2020

What will President Biden’s United States look like to the rest of the world?
European Council on Foreign Relations, November 2020

Views from the capitals: What Biden’s victory means for Europe
European Council on Foreign Relations, November 2020

Western democracies united
European Council on Foreign Relations, November 2020

Why populism in Europe will survive Trump’s defeat
European Council on Foreign Relations, November 2020

Course correction in US-Iranian relations: A road map for the Biden administration
European Council on Foreign Relations, November 2020

What we have lost: Trump, Biden, and the meaning of transatlantic relations
European Council on Foreign Relations, November 2020

Anxious allies: European sovereignty after the US election
European Council on Foreign Relations, November 2020

With no landslide win for Biden, Beijing benefits
European Council on Foreign Relations, November 2020`

What are the laws governing military force during U.S. elections?
Council on Foreign Relations, October 2020

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

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

Postelection forecast: More polarization ahead
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, November 2020

A new direction?
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, November 2020

America under Biden won’t go soft on China
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, November 2020

Joe Biden’s election will mainly affect citizens in the Middle East and North Africa
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, November 2020

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

Is the U.S. election a make or break for America?
Carnegie Europe, November 2020

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

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

Top 5 financial regulatory priorities for the Biden administration
Brookings Institution, November 2020

Recalibrating America’s role in the world under a Biden presidency
Brookings Institution, November 2020

A fitting legacy for George Floyd: Vice President Kamala Harris
Brookings Institution, November 2020

It’s not just Trump and Biden: State and local ballot measures could have a big impact on community recovery
Brookings Institution, October 2020

Whoever wins the US elections will need to save democratic capitalism through ‘new Bretton Woods’
Atlantic Council, October 2020

Joe Biden just won the presidency: What does that mean for America’s role in the world?
Atlantic Council, November 2020

Biden’s victory provides an ‘inflection point’ for American democracy
Atlantic Council, November 2020

How a President-elect Biden will confront climate change
Atlantic Council, November 2020

Europe and Biden’s America: Making European autonomy and a revamped transatlantic bond two sides of the same coin
Instituto Affari Internazionali, November 2020

Top 10 priorities for President Biden to tackle the climate crisis
World Recourses Institute, November 2020

After a hard election, the real work begins
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, November 2020

The Biden administration must strongly advocate for working people
Aspen Institute, November 2020

In search of Biden doctrine
Foreign Policy Research Institute, November 2020

U.S. election 2020: America’s restlessness is a mark of its unique strength
Hudson Institute, November 2020

Americans choose their president: Europe must live with the consequences
Centre for European Reform, November 2020

No, State Legislatures aren’t going to override the popular vote on presidential electors
Cato, November 2020

United States: Leaders must put democracy above partisan interests
Freedom House, November 2020

How are countries reporting on the U.S. election?
German Marshall Fund, November 2020

U.S. Midterm elections: What the results mean
Chatham House, November 2020

US foreign policy priorities
Chatham House, October 2020

U.S.: Voters choose Biden as President
Human Right Watch, November 2020

Stalemate 2020
American Enterprise Institute, November 2020

What would a Biden presidency mean for US-EU trade relations?
Centre for European Reform, October 2020

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

The first 100 days: Toward a more sustainable and values-based national security approach
Center for American Progress, October 2020

Stop saying Biden is ‘A lot like Trump’ on China
National Bureau on Economic Research, October 2020

Read this briefing on ‘U.S. Presidential election‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Angelos Delivorias (1st edition),

A prospectus is a legally required document presenting information about a company and the securities that it offers to the public or seeks to admit to trading on a regulated market. The relevant EU legislation consists of a directive, adopted in 2003, amended in 2010, and finally replaced by a regulation in 2017. Drawing up a prospectus entails time and costs, which in the current economic context may deter issuers in distress from seeking to raise new funds, in particular equity. To remedy this, the Commission proposed to amend Regulation (EU) 2017/1129. These amendments aim at creating a temporary (18 month) regime for a short-form prospectus and to simplify the procedure for issuers (so that they can rapidly raise capital), as well as to release pressure on financial intermediaries.

The Council published its negotiating mandate on 16 October 2020. The European Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) ‘is expected to vote on adoption of its report on 19 November 2020.

Complete version

• Prospectuses for investors – Simplifying equity-raising during the pandemic (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1129 as regards the EU recovery prospectus and targeted adjustments for financial intermediaries to help the recovery from the Covid‑19 pandemic Committee responsible: Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) COM(2020) 281 final
24.7.2020 Rapporteur: Ondřej Kovařík (Renew, Czechia) 2020/0155(COD) Shadow rapporteurs: Sirpa Pietikäinen (EPP, Finland)
Alfred Sant (S&D, Malta)
Jörg Meuthen (ID, Germany)
Ernest Urtasun (Greens/EFA, Spain)
Eugen Jurzyca (ECR, Slovakia)
José Gusmão (GUE/NGL, Portugal) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Adoption of report in committee

Written by Costica Dumbrava (1st edition),

© dechevm / Adobe Stock

In September 2020, the Commission put forward a new pact on migration and asylum, setting out a comprehensive approach to European Union (EU) migration policies that links external borders, asylum, return systems, the Schengen area of free movement and the external dimension of migration. The pact includes a proposal for a new regulation on the screening of third-country nationals at external borders aiming to clarify and streamline the rules on dealing with third-country nationals who are not authorised to enter or stay in the EU.

The proposal would introduce a pre-entry screening procedure allowing national authorities at external borders to channel irregular third-country nationals to the appropriate procedure, i.e. asylum or return procedures. The screening would start with preliminary health and vulnerability checks and finish with the transmission of a debriefing form to the appropriate authorities. The proposal would provide for the establishment, by each Member State, of an independent monitoring mechanism for fundamental rights.

Complete version

• Screening of third-country nationals at the EU external borders (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation introducing a screening of third-country nationals at the external borders Committee responsible: Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) COM(2020) 612
23.9.2020 Rapporteur: Birgit Sippel (S&D, Germany) 2020/0278 (COD) Shadow rapporteurs: Tineke Strik (Greens/EFA, The Netherlands) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Initial discussions in committee

Written by Wouter van Ballegooij and Katharina Eisele,

© Adobe Stock

Fast-tracking procedures at European Union external borders for determining whether individuals are entitled to international protection is a priority in the proposed Pact on Migration and Asylum. Asylum procedures at the border are in fact not new in European Union policy.

What are the rules for asylum and international protection in the EU? EU Member States have committed to offering protection to those who have to leave their home country to seek safety from persecution or serious harm. Through the ‘Common European Asylum System’ (CEAS), the EU has developed legal and policy instruments for the management of asylum in the EU that apply from the moment someone has lodged an asylum application until the moment the application has been recognised or rejected upon appeal.

The CEAS includes common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, laid down in the Asylum Procedures Directive (APD). Article 43 of the APD allows for border procedures: When applications for international protection are made at the border or in a transit zone of a Member State prior to a decision on the entry of the applicant, Member States can provide for admissibility and/or substantive examination procedures at these locations. Furthermore, the directive allows the possibility to apply border procedures in transit zones or in proximity of borders in the event of large numbers of arrivals.

Key findings of the EPRS European Implementation Assessment

A European Implementation Assessment, based on two external studies, concludes that uniform and fair asylum procedures at the European Union border have not been achieved to date. Why is this? While the failure is due to patchy implementation of EU law, it is also caused by lack of clarity in the underlying EU legal framework.

In terms of effectiveness, important differences remain between Member States with regard to the concept and scope of the EU border procedure, notably on restrictions of liberty and procedural guarantees. Furthermore, implementation is not properly monitored and enforced.

The systematic and extended use of (de facto) detention in the context of border procedures is not in line with the right to liberty. Procedural guarantees provided for in the APD are not, or only restrictively, applied in practice. Vulnerable applicants, including unaccompanied minors, continue to be subject to border procedures and held in detention facilities, raising questions as regards compliance with the rights of the child.

Short time limits to lodge and decide on appeals and the lack of suspensive effect of appeals in certain countries, raise concerns as to whether effective remedies are provided. The costs of border procedures are significant and probably disproportionate under the current circumstances, given that their objectives are not being achieved. Beyond administrative costs, border procedures entail significant human cost for the individuals affected by their application. In terms of coherence, the framework for border procedures under the APD is complex and unclear, in part due to the various cross-references to other provisions of the APD and the application of other CEAS instruments.

The way forward: recommendations

The European Implementation Assessment makes a number of recommendations to address these shortcomings in future legal and practical arrangements for border procedures:

• Importantly, access to asylum procedures should be ensured at all times and at all external borders of the European Union. EU law should further limit the applicability of the border procedure. The border procedure should only be used following an individual assessment of the circumstances of the case, including an examination of potential special reception and procedural needs.
• The asylum applications of (unaccompanied) children and asylum applicants with special (reception and/or procedural) needs should not be processed in a border procedure. Where EU authorities seek to return an individual to a non-EU country, the safety of such return is to be ensured.
• Adequate funding and training of border guards and appropriate time limits are needed, to ensure that the determining authority is able to gather all necessary information and can take a careful asylum decision. Member States need to collect and transmit statistics on the scope of their border procedure. Independent monitoring, through the creation of an EU asylum monitoring mechanism, should verify the quality of the decision-making process and its outcome, as well as detention conditions and compliance with procedural safeguards.
• Any use of detention, as well as restrictions of free movement, should be mandated by domestic law in compliance with EU legislation on reception conditions for asylum-seekers, and subjected to proportionality assessment in each case, taking alternatives into account. Border detention facilities must be adequate and ensure a dignified standard of living that guarantees subsistence and protects physical and mental health. A decision to detain an applicant or restrict her/his free movement should be subject to a speedy judicial review.
• During a border procedure, applicants for international protection should be entitled to free legal and linguistic assistance by qualified legal advisers and interpreters. Applicants should also be able to communicate with the outside world, in order to gather information about the asylum procedure and, to gather and submit evidence in support of their asylum claim.
• Finally, the time frame allowed should be sufficient to enable applicants to prepare and substantiate their asylum application and to make effective use of all procedural rights granted to them, including those during appeal.

Written by Ivana Katsarova,

The only parliament in the world to award a film prize, the European Parliament has been shining a spotlight on European cinema every year since 2007. This year the prize is gearing up to become a European Audience Film Award. Over the past 12 years, the LUX Film Prize has helped promote over 100 films, supporting the dissemination of European (co-)productions in a bid to overcome the language and distribution barriers faced by the European film industry. Prize-winners have gone on to be highly successful in the EU and beyond, making the LUX Film Prize a synonym for quality film-making.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘LUX Prize 2.0: Pan-European Audience Film Award‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

 

Written by Katarzyna Sochacka and Clare Ferguson,

Copyright © European Union 2020 – Source : EP/DAINA LE LARDIC

During the first November 2020 plenary session, the main debate followed Council and Commission statements on the multiannual financial framework (including own resources), on a rule of law conditionality mechanism and the recovery fund for Europe, subsequent to the agreements recently reached by Parliament’s negotiators in trilogue negotiations. Members also discussed the outcome of the United States presidential elections, and condemned recent terror attacks following Council and Commission statements on fighting terrorism and the right to freedom of expression and education. Members also held debates on access to Covid‑19 vaccination and the impact of Covid‑19 emergency measures on democracy, fundamental rights and the rule of law.

EU general budget for 2021

Members discussed next year’s spending plans in anticipation of the formal adoption of the final agreement on the 2021‑2027 multiannual financial framework (MFF). Members debated and adopted, by large majority, amendments to the Commission’s proposed EU general budget for 2021, focusing on the effects of the coronavirus pandemic. Among other priorities for Europe’s recovery, Parliament voted to increase funding (by €15 billion compared to the Commission proposal) for 15 flagship programmes to support young people, the health sector and the European Green Deal. The 21-day conciliation period, during which Parliament and Council seek to reconcile their positions, now starts, with the aim of reaching agreement in time for Parliament to adopt the 2021 budget during the December plenary session.

EU4Health

Members debated the establishment of an important programme of EU health policy actions, known as EU4Health. Funded under Next Generation EU, the new programme should strengthen EU coordination on health matters, in line with Parliament’s position to place stronger focus on preventing disease, promoting health measures and reducing health inequality throughout the EU. Trilogue negotiations on the programme can now begin, as Members adopted Parliament’s position on the basis of the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) Committee report on financing the EU4Health programme 2021‑2027, by a significant majority.

Sustainable Europe Investment Plan

Members debated and adopted, by large majority, a joint Budget (BUDG) and Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) Committee report, welcoming the Sustainable Europe Investment Plan and supporting the mix of public and private funding, but also questioning whether the promised €1 trillion can indeed be mobilised by 2030, given the negative economic outlook. Parliament proposes changes to the current plans to take account of the role of trade policy, to measure the impacts of the support effectively, and to ensure that the ‘do no harm’ principle is respected.

EU-China Geographical Agreement

Members approved the EU-China agreement on cooperation on and protection of geographical indications by a significant majority. The agreement, protecting geographical indications for 100 products each from the EU and China, with a further 175 products to be protected within 4 years, can now be formally concluded by the Council. Parliament’s International Trade (INTA) Committee calls for strong implementation of the measures in the agreement, including deeper customs cooperation.

European network of public employment services

Members adopted, by a large majority, a report on revision of the European Network of Public Employment Services that would extend the agreement on cooperation among organisations supporting job-seekers to 31 December 2027. The report by Parliament’s Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL) highlights the benefits reaped by these organisations working together and proposes a revised focus for the network – to work towards preventing unemployment and increasing employability.

Baltic cod fisheries

Members approved proposals to support permanent cessation of fishing by fishermen affected by the closing of the eastern and western Baltic cod fisheries owing to the poor health of fish stocks in the Baltic Sea, as well as the related western Baltic herring fisheries. Under the agreement, financial support will be made available for crews and communities to remove fishing capacity permanently.

Senegal and Seychelles fisheries agreements

Parliament gave its consent to two EU fisheries agreements with Senegal and Seychelles. The first ever EU bilateral fisheries agreement, signed with Senegal in 1979, allows EU vessels to fish in Senegalese waters while also helping to support the development of a sustainable fisheries policy in the region. Members voted to consent to a new protocol to implement the agreement. Members also approved a new agreement with the Seychelles, the EU’s most financially significant tuna agreement, giving EU vessels access to fishing grounds in the western Indian Ocean, and confirming cooperation on sustainable fishing in the region.

Election of a Vice-President of the European Parliament

Members elected Roberta Metsola (EPP, Malta) as first Vice‑President, following Mairead McGuinness’s nomination as Commissioner for Financial Services, Financial Stability and Capital Markets Union. Replacing the President in the chamber, Vice-Presidents are responsible, as members of the Bureau, for financial, organisational and administrative decisions on Parliament’s functioning, and interinstitutional relations.

Opening of trilogue negotiations

Members confirmed four mandates for negotiations: from the Culture and Education (CULT) Committee on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council for the European Capitals of Culture for 2020‑2033; from the ECON committee on the proposal for a regulation laying down a general framework for securitisation and creating a specific framework for simple, transparent and standardised securitisation to help the recovery from the Covid‑19 pandemic, and on the proposal for a regulation as regards adjustments to the securitisation framework to support the economic recovery in response to the Covid‑19 pandemic; and jointly from BUDG and ECON committees on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Recovery and Resilience Facility.

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

© Adobe Stock

Citizens often send messages to the President of the European Parliament (or to the institution’s public portal) expressing their views on current issues and/or requesting action from the Parliament. The Citizens’ Enquiries Unit (AskEP) within the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) looks into these issues and replies to the messages, which may sometimes be identical as part of wider public campaigns.

The President of the European Parliament has recently received a large number of messages calling on the Parliament to condemn the hostilities between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Citizens first began to write to the President on this subject in September 2020, when violent clashes between both countries resumed over the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region. In October, citizens renewed their call in reaction to the strikes on the Azerbaijani city of Ganja, and more broadly in view of the escalation of the conflict.

Please find below the main points of the reply sent to citizens who took the time to write to the President of the European Parliament on this matter (in English, German and Italian).

Main points made in the reply in English

The European Parliament and the Head of EU diplomacy, High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the Commission Josep Borrell held a plenary debate on the European Union reactions to the renewed escalation in violence between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region on 7 October 2020.You can watch the video recording of the debate on the Multimedia Website (starting from 9:16:30 minutes).

In his statement, HR/VP Josep Borrell indicated that the current military confrontation along the line of contact in the Nagorno Karabakh conflict zone was of utmost concern for the EU. He also said: ‘Our position is clear: the fighting must stop. Both sides need to re-engage in meaningful negotiations (..). There can be no military solution to the conflict, nor external interference. This position was reinforced by the European Council held on the 1st and 2nd of October’.

Leading Members of the European Parliament have issued a joint statement on the military clashes in which they express great concern about the renewed escalation of violence on the line of contact and call on the authorities of Armenia and Azerbaijan to observe the ceasefire strictly.

The European Union has welcomed the humanitarian ceasefire agreement reached on 10 October between Armenia and Azerbaijan. HR/VP Josep Borrell deplored the strikes on the Azerbaijani city of Ganja resulting in civilian loss of life and serious injury.

HR/VP Josep Borrell has contacted the ministers of Foreign Affairs of Armenia and Azerbaijan and stressed the necessity to fully respect the agreed ceasefire without delay and to stop targeting of civilians. He confirmed that the EU remained ready to support the parties in a long-term solution to the conflict and will continue to monitor the situation.

The European Parliament has also held debates and adopted resolutions on the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh region in previous years.

In a 2018 recommendation on the negotiations on the EU-Azerbaijan Comprehensive Agreement, Parliament recommended, ‘to ensure that high priority is given to dialogue between Armenia and Azerbaijan and to enhanced EU participation in peacefully solving the Nagorno-Karabakh’.

In addition, Members of the European Parliament have addressed parliamentary questions on various issues concerning the situation in the region to the European Commission. In an answer of 31 August 2020 to a parliamentary question regarding the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, HR/VP Josep Borrell indicated on behalf of the European Commission: ‘The EU has urged both sides to stop the armed confrontation, refrain from action and rhetoric that provoke tension, and undertake immediate measures to prevent further escalation. (..) both sides should make use of their mechanism for direct communication. (..) The EU has encouraged all regional actors to support efforts toward de-escalation’.

Furthermore, we would like to draw your attention also to the efforts made by the European Parliament’s Delegation for relations with the South Caucasus, the homepage of which also contains numerous communications from the delegation and its chairs on recent developments in these countries.

Main points made in the reply in German

Das Plenum des Europäischen Parlaments und der Hohe Vertreter der Union und Vizepräsident der Kommission Josep Borrell debattierten am 7. Oktober 2020 über den Umgang der Europäischen Union mit der erneuten Eskalation des gewaltsamen Konflikts zwischen Armenien und Aserbaidschan um die umstrittene Region Bergkarabach. Die Videoaufzeichnung der Debatte finden Sie auf der Multimedia-Website des Parlaments (ab Minute 09:16:30).

In seiner Erklärung wies Josep Borrell darauf hin, dass die militärischen Auseinandersetzungen an der Kontaktlinie im Konfliktgebiet Bergkarabach der EU große Sorge bereiten. Er ließ auch wissen: „Unser Standpunkt ist klar: Die Kämpfe müssen aufhören. Beide Seiten müssen sich wieder an sinnvollen Verhandlungen beteiligen […]. Der Konflikt kann weder militärisch noch durch Einflussnahme von außen gelöst werden. Der Europäische Rat bestätigte diesen Standpunkt auf seiner Tagung vom 1. und 2. Oktober.“

In einer gemeinsamen Erklärung zu den militärischen Auseinandersetzungen äußern hochrangige Mitglieder des Europäischen Parlaments ihre große Besorgnis über die erneute Eskalation der Gewalt an der Kontaktlinie. Sie fordern Armenien und Aserbaidschan auf, die Waffenruhe strikt einzuhalten.

Zur Lage in Bergkarabach hat das Europäische Parlament auch in den vergangenen Jahren bereits Debatten geführt und Entschließungen angenommen.

In einer Empfehlung aus dem Jahr 2018 zu den Verhandlungen über das umfassende Abkommen zwischen der EU und Aserbaidschan trat das Parlament dafür ein, „dem Dialog zwischen Aserbaidschan und Armenien und der stärkeren Mitwirkung der EU an der friedlichen Beilegung des Konflikts um Bergkarabach […] oberste Priorität“ einzuräumen.

Darüber hinaus haben Mitglieder des Europäischen Parlaments parlamentarische Anfragen zu verschiedenen Aspekten der Lage in der Region an die Europäische Kommission gerichtet. In seiner Antwort vom 31. August 2020 auf eine parlamentarische Anfrage zum Konflikt zwischen Armenien und Aserbaidschan um Bergkarabach erklärte Josep Borrell im Namen der Europäischen Kommission: „Die EU hat beide Seiten nachdrücklich aufgefordert, die bewaffnete Auseinandersetzung zu beenden, von Handlungen und Worten abzusehen, die weitere Spannungen hervorrufen können, und umgehend Maßnahmen zu ergreifen, damit die Lage nicht weiter eskaliert.“ Beide Seiten sollten außerdem direkten Kontakt miteinander aufnehmen, und die EU habe „alle regionalen Akteure ermuntert, die Bemühungen um eine Deeskalation zu unterstützen.“

Hinweisen möchten wir Sie auch auf die Bemühungen der Delegation des Europäischen Parlaments für die Beziehungen zum Südkaukasus. Auf ihrer Website finden Sie zahlreiche Mitteilungen der Delegation und ihrer Vorsitzenden zu den aktuellsten Entwicklungen in den betroffenen Ländern.

Main points made in the reply in Italian

Il 7 ottobre 2020 il Parlamento europeo e l’Alto rappresentante/Vicepresidente Josep Borrell hanno tenuto un dibattito in plenaria sulle reazioni dell’Unione europea alla nuova escalation di violenza tra Armenia e Azerbaigian nella regione contesa del Nagorno-Karabakh. È possibile guardare la videoregistrazione del dibattito sul sito Multimedia Centre del Parlamento (a partire dal munito 9:16:30).

Nella sua dichiarazione, Josep Borrell ha affermato che l’attuale scontro militare lungo la linea di contatto nella zona di conflitto del Nagorno Karabakh è causa di profonda preoccupazione per l’UE. Ha inoltre aggiunto: “La nostra posizione è chiara: i combattimenti devono fermarsi. Entrambe le parti devono riprendere negoziati significativi (…). Non ci può essere alcuna soluzione militare al conflitto né alcuna interferenza esterna. Questa posizione è stata rafforzata dal Consiglio europeo del 1° e del 2 ottobre”.

Alcuni deputati di spicco al Parlamento europeo hanno rilasciato una dichiarazione congiunta sugli scontri armati, in cui esprimono grande preoccupazione per la rinnovata escalation di violenza sulla linea di contatto e invitano le autorità di Armenia e Azerbaigian a rispettare rigorosamente il cessate il fuoco.

Negli anni scorsi il Parlamento europeo ha inoltre tenuto dibattiti e approvato risoluzioni sulla situazione nella regione del Nagorno-Karabakh.

In una raccomandazione del 2018 sui negoziati relativi all’accordo globale tra l’UE e l’Azerbaigian, il Parlamento ha raccomandato “di garantire che sia attribuita un’elevata priorità al dialogo tra l’Azerbaigian e l’Armenia e alla partecipazione rafforzata dell’UE alla risoluzione pacifica del conflitto del Nagorno-Karabakh”.

I deputati al Parlamento europeo hanno inoltre rivolto alla Commissione europea interrogazioni parlamentari riguardanti varie questioni relative alla situazione nella regione. Nella risposta del 31 agosto 2020 a un’interrogazione parlamentare sul conflitto tra l’Armenia e l’Azerbaigian nel Nagorno-Karabakh, l’Alto rappresentante/Vicepresidente Josep Borrell ha dichiarato a nome della Commissione europea: “L’UE ha esortato entrambe le parti a porre fine allo scontro armato, ad astenersi da azioni o retorica che provochino tensione e ad adottare misure immediate per evitare un’ulteriore escalation. (…) entrambe le parti dovrebbero utilizzare il meccanismo di comunicazione diretta. (…) L’UE invita tutti gli attori della regione a sostenere gli sforzi a favore della distensione”.

Inoltre, desideriamo richiamare la Sua attenzione anche sugli sforzi realizzati dalla delegazione per le relazioni con il Caucaso meridionale del Parlamento europeo, la cui pagina iniziale contiene anche numerose comunicazioni elaborate dalla delegazione e dai suoi presidenti sui recenti sviluppi nei paesi interessati.

Written by Danièle Réchard,

© Adobe Stock

The European Strategy and Policy Analysis System (ESPAS) – the strategic foresight network of the European Union institutions – offers a valuable ‘free space’ in which to conduct a genuine continental, and potentially global, conversation about where the world is heading over the medium to long run. It was initiated by the European Parliament almost a decade ago in order to help promote a serious discussion of this kind.

The third ESPAS Global Trends Report, Global Trends to 2030: Challenges and Choices for Europe, as published in April 2019. Transposing into the European context the kind of strategic foresight analysis undertaken in the United States by the National Intelligence Council (NIC) on global trends since the end of the 1990s, it aims to sketch the global and longer-term backdrop against which Europeans will seek to shape their future. The coronavirus pandemic broke out less than a year later.

At the moment, as Bruno Tertrais has put it, ‘we’re still at the stage in which everyone sees their views and assumptions as being confirmed by the corona crisis. This is true in the West and East, on the left and on the right’. This is understandable and projections based on reliable data are still scarce. The time-horizon of analysis generally does not go beyond 2022-23 (for example, the IMF and OECD Economic Outlooks). So the starting-point of any reflection is uncertain: What is the true death toll of the pandemic? How serious will the second wave be, and will there be a third? Which of the (possibly already) observable economic, societal, political and geopolitical consequences of the crisis will have a serious and long-lasting impact? Many strategic foresight teams, for example at the Atlantic Council, have nevertheless started to draw up ‘post Covid-19 scenarios’, which have been usefully listed by the OECD.

This paper aims to help distinguish the ‘signal’ from the ‘noise’. It provides a rolling review of the ‘inflections’ to the mega-trends – or at least of their perception among a wide array of global thinkers – that were identified in the 2019 ESPAS Global Trends Report. It follows the distinction used in the ESPAS report between ‘mega-trends’, ‘catalysts’ and ‘game-changers’ and stresses their inter-linkages.

Once we have taken enough steps back and gathered solid data and expertise, we will possibly be able to produce a new narrative about our future. This will most likely involve a ‘reshuffling’ of the trends. In particular, two ‘meta-trends’ might be singled out that transversally permeate all other trends and indeed all aspects of human life: technological innovation and inequality.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Global mega-trends: Scanning the post-coronavirus horizon‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.