European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

Written by Nicole Scholz (1st edition),

© Julien Eichinger / Adobe Stock

On 28 May 2020, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a regulation on a new health programme (EU4Health) for 2021 to 2027. Announced as part of the Next Generation EU (NGEU) recovery instrument, according to the Commission the EU4Health programme is intended to boost the EU’s preparedness for major cross-border health threats and improve health systems resilience.

Under the proposal, EU4Health would be a stand-alone, dedicated funding programme with a budget of €10.4 billion (in current prices). However, during the ongoing negotiations on the EU’s next multiannual financial framework (MFF) for the 2021-2027 period and NGEU, the budget for EU4Health has been reviewed downwards compared with what was originally proposed. According to the 21 July 2020 European Council conclusions, the programme will be allocated €1.7 billion.

Stakeholders broadly welcome the proposal, but generally regret the European Council’s reduction of the financial envelope allocated to it. In a July 2020 resolution on the European Council conclusions, Parliament criticised the proposed cuts to EU4Health. In Parliament, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) is responsible for the file. The rapporteur’s June 2020 draft report proposes several amendments to the Commission proposal. ENVI Members tabled further amendments in July. The committee is expected to vote on the report in October.

In the Council, the proposal is being examined at the level of the working party on public health.

Versions

• EU4Health programme

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of a Programme for the Union’s action in the field of health – for the period 2021-2027 and repealing Regulation (EU) No 282/2014 (‘EU4Health Programme’) Committee responsible: Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) COM(2020) 405
28.5.2020 Rapporteur: Cristian-Silviu Buşoi (EPP, Romania) 2020/0102 (COD) Shadow rapporteurs: Sara Cerdas (S&D, Portugal)
Véronique Trillet-Lenoir (Renew Europe, France)
Luisa Regimenti (ID, Italy)
Michèle Rivasi (Greens/EFA, France)
Joanna Kopcińska (ECR, Poland)
Kateřina Konečná (GUE/NGL, Czechia) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Adoption of report in committee

Written by Christiaan van Lierop.

This year’s European Week of Regions and Cities will truly be like no other. Not only will the event be taking place online due to local Coronavirus restrictions but it will also extend over three consecutive weeks for the first time ever in the event’s history. Each week will focus on a different headline theme, covering in turn Empowering Citizens, Cohesion and Cooperation, and Green Europe, with EWRC 2020 expected to provide the usual rich forum for discussion and debate.

But of course it’s not just this year’s special circumstances that makes this event so unique. After all, the world’s largest annual gathering of regional movers and shakers is always going to attract attention, with some of the biggest names in regional policymaking joining the party this year, albeit from the comfort of their own living room. And while the only face-to-face meetings this year may be taking part through the prism of a computer screen, the discussions will be no less passionate for all that. Against the backdrop of the Coronavirus crisis and with negotiations on the post-2020 cohesion policy framework in full swing, there will certainly be no shortage of things for this year’s participants to talk about, with the event providing local and regional stakeholders with a unique opportunity to share their experiences on the front line.

As in the past, EPRS has also published a Topical Digest to tie in with the event. Prepared specially for the 2020 EWRC, the publication showcases a selection of briefings published by the European Parliament on many of the key topics up for debate at the EWRC, such as the Just Transition, cross-border regional healthcare or digital democracy among many others. And although our special information stand has gone virtual this year, visitors will still be able to visit it online to find out more about the EPRS’ research activities, and download a selection of our specialist publications on regional policy.

But there’s much more to our involvement in this year’s event than just counting clicks on our virtual stand. EPRS will once again be organising a workshop on research as part of the EURegions Week College, which replaces the Master Class of past years. Unlike previous years, however, this year’s workshop will be open to all not just to students and early career researchers – and we are thrilled to have the opportunity to present our work to a wider audience. The workshop will show participants how EPRS supports the work of the European Parliament during the policy making process, and consider how closer links may be established between researchers in the academic world and policy-makers in the EU institutions.

Far from talking to an empty computer screen, we will also be asking participants to get actively involved in the discussions. As ever, we want to hear what they have to say – so we too can learn from the event. At EPRS, we understand that ‘Empowering through knowledge’, far from being just our motto, is in reality a two-way process.

Written by Ionel Zamfir,

Seventy-five years after the 24 October 1945 ratification of the United Nations (UN) Charter, the UN remains at the heart of the multilateral system. However, multilateralism today faces some serious challenges. To take stock of the UN’s current role as well as to discuss the way forward and the EU’s role in the organisation, EPRS organised a discussion on 23 September 2020, gathering diverse viewpoints in a virtual event under the title ‘The United Nations at 75: What has the multilateral system achieved and where is it going?’

The event took place shortly after the 75th UN General Assembly Session opened in New York on 21 September, in an unusual setting marked by the coronavirus crisis, as vividly reported directly from New York by Alexandre Stutzmann, special adviser to the President of the UN General Assembly and former European Parliament official. This year, pre-recorded interventions replaced the usual live speeches given in New York by numerous Heads of State each year in September. A high-level event took place on 21 September to mark the UN 75th anniversary and a forward-looking political declaration was adopted.

Soraya Rodríguez Ramos (Renew, Spain), Member of the European Parliament and Rapporteur for the future EP report on EU priorities at the 75th UN General Assembly, opened the discussion, stressing the importance of multilateralism in today’s hostile environment. According to Rodríguez Ramos, the coronavirus crisis has shown that a unilateral response is not the way forward; global governance and international solidary and cooperation are more needed than ever before. It is necessary to revitalise multilateralism, with the UN at its core. We need to find common solutions to tackle the new challenges of today that include, first of all, climate change, but also biodiversity loss, as well as persistent problems that have become more acute because of coronavirus crisis: poverty and hunger, lack of drinking water, violence and discrimination against women and girls.

European Parliament Vice-President Fabio Massimo Castaldo (NI, Italy) highlighted that, in its 75 years of history, the UN has shaped the world for the better, but the growing challenges of today are different from those envisaged by UN founders. More international cooperation is needed to tackle climate change, migration, poverty, inequality, and cybersecurity threats. Castaldo urged the UN to go back to the people, considering that reports of multilateralism’s demise are greatly exaggerated. He also highlighted the EU’s role in the UN: The Union has been able to make a difference through diplomacy and mediation for example.

Alexandre Stutzmann gave a detailed picture of the UN actions to mark its anniversary, stressing the efforts to reach out to ordinary people and particularly to young persons. He talked about the specificity of this year’s UN General Assembly Session, with much needed direct diplomatic interaction severely curtailed by the crisis. He detailed the high-level event marking the UN anniversary, outlining the complexities of the intergovernmental drafting process that ushered in the political declaration adopted on that occasion.

Barbara Pesce-Monteiro, director of the UN/UN Development Programme office in Brussels, also talked about the UN public campaign organised on its 75th anniversary and its results, which will feed into potential reforms. Pesce‑Monteiro further stressed that the current health crisis, with growing inequality and a particularly hard impact on women, illustrates the need for global solidarity, as does the climate crisis. In response to this, she stressed the need to continue to implement the Sustainable Development Goals as the only effective approach to tackle today’s strongly interrelated challenges. In common with the other speakers, Pesce‑Monteiro also acknowledged that the UN has to change, and welcomed EU support for the organisation.

Professor Jan Wouters reaffirmed the need to reform the UN, particularly its Security Council, which is not prepared to deal with the challenges of the future – in the next 25 or even 75 years. He warned that the current outlook for such reforms does not look at all promising: real drivers of reform are weak, and the vested interests of the current permanent members are a serious obstacle. He described the current crisis as the first global crisis without global leadership (a ‘G0 crisis’). This is due to the United States’ retreat from the global scene – the country whose leadership has traditionally been vital for shaping global institutions. A reinvigorated EU leadership with cross-regional support from like-minded countries can help fill this vacuum. Finally, Wouters encouraged reflection on the intergovernmental nature of the UN system in today’s globalised world, in which non-state actors, including regional international organisations, such as the European Union, play an increasingly powerful role.

To conclude, Ionel Zamfir, policy analyst at the EPRS, presented the findings of a recently published analysis on the EU’s role in the United Nations system, according to which the EU can be considered a credible, coherent and active player in the UN system. Its involvement is multidimensional, going beyond its observer role, including the EU’s participation in multilateral treaties and in the negotiations leading to these, its financial contributions, as well as the long-term, complex and mutually beneficial partnerships it has established with various entities in the UN system. Zamfir warned that one of the biggest challenges facing the UN today is to remain faithful to its fundamental principles, such as those enshrined in its founding documents, particularly with respect to universal human rights, which are under increasing threat with the rise of the authoritarianism in the world.

Click to view slideshow.

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© hanohiki / Adobe Stock

According to analysts and politicians, China’s increasingly autocratic domestic stance and assertive foreign policy are damaging its relations with the European Union. No substantial agreement was achieved at a virtual EU-China summit on 14 September, despite years of negotiations on many issues, not least on trade and investment. ‘For the EU, China is simultaneously (in different policy areas) a cooperation partner, a negotiation partner, an economic competitor and a systemic rival,’ the EU External Action Service’s background paper says.

Formally, the EU and China have been strategic partners since 2003 – a partnership that was broadened five years ago by the EU-China 2020 Strategic Agenda for Cooperation. However, more recently, EU officials and politicians have been expressing increasing concerns over China’s economic expansionism and human rights violations. The current coronavirus pandemic and developments in Hong Kong have had a marked negative impacted on EU-China relations.

This note offers links to recent commentaries, studies and reports from major international think tanks on China, its ties with the EU and related issues.

EU-China

Non-summit shows EU-China ties at new low
Bruegel, September 2020

Towards tougher bilateral relations between EU and China
Institut français des relations internationales, September 2020

The new China consensus: How Europe is growing wary of Beijing
European Council on Foreign Relations, September 2020

The EU-China relationship
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, September 2020

Europe, the US and China: A love-hate triangle?
Centre for European Reform, September 2020

It’s time for NATO and the EU to have a serious conversation about China
Friends of Europe, September 2020

EU-China relations: State of the art and new perspectives
Instituto Affari Internazionali, September 2020

Relocating production from China to Central Europe? Not so fast!
Bruegel, September 2020

Europe’s manoeuvring on 5G technology: The case of Italy
Instituto Affari Internazionali, September 2020

The missing partnership: The United States, Europe, and China’s economic challenge
German Marshall Fund, September 2020

China and the EU in the Western Balkans A zero-sum game?
Clingendael, August 2020

Towards strategic autonomy: The role of the EU in the growing China-USA rivalry
Egmont, July 2020

EU-China trade and investment: Views from East and West
Friends of Europe, July 2020

Europe’s China problem: Investment screening and state aid
Bruegel, July 2020

The pandemic, power rivalries and the EU
Friends of Europe, July 2020

Europe’s digital sovereignty: From rulemaker to superpower in the age of US-China rivalry
European Council on Foreign Relations, July 2020

The meaning of systemic rivalry: Europe and China beyond the pandemic
European Council on Foreign Relations, May 2020

Hong Kong calls: Can Europe respond?
Carnegie Europe, May 2020

Other studies and commentaries

China’s ‘dual circulation’ plan is bad news for others’ exports
Bruegel, September 2020

The cacophony of powers: International politics in the 2020s
Instituto Affari Internazionali, September 2020

Europe’s global test
Carnegie Europe, September 2020

The race for critical minerals in an era of geopolitical realignments
Instituto Affari Internazionali, September 2020

How US-China tensions could hamper development efforts
Brookings Institution, September 2020

Lessons from the Trump administration’s policy experiment on China
Brookings Institution, September 2020

China’s structural power and the fate of the BCIM economic corridor
Instituto Affari Internazionali, September 2020

China’s system of oppression in Xinjiang: How it developed and how to curb it
Brookings Institution, September 2020

Will the U.S. stance on Chinese telecom equipment change?
European Centre for International Political Economy, September 2020

Returning to the shadows: China, Pakistan, and the fate of CPEC
German Marshall Fund, September 2020

An answer to aggression: How to push back against Beijing
German Marshall Fund, September 2020

The Sino-Russian normative partnership in action
European Union Institute for Security Studies, August 2020

US-China phase one tracker: China’s purchases of US goods
Peterson Institute for International Economics, August 2020

Differentiated cooperation in European Foreign Policy: The challenge of coherence
European Policy Centre, August 2020

Fewer Chinese investments in the US are raising national security concerns
Peterson Institute for International Economics, August 2020

Debunking the myth of ‘debt-trap diplomacy’: How recipient countries shape China’s Belt and Road Initiative
Chatham House, August 2020

Arms and influence? Chinese arms transfers to Africa in context
Peterson Institute for International Economics, July 2020

How ‘democratic security’ can protect Europe from a rising China
German Council on Foreign Relations, July 2020

Despite the rhetoric, US-China financial decoupling is not happening
Peterson Institute for International Economics, July 2020

Mask wars: China’s exports of medical goods in times of Covid-19
Kiel Institute for the World Economy, July 2020

Masks off: Chinese coronavirus assistance in Europe
German Marshall Fund, July 2020

Hong Kong: The second hand-over
Fondation pour l’innovation politique, July 2020

European fear of ‘missing out’ and narratives on China in Africa
European Think Tank Group, July 2020

China has blown its historic opportunity
Peterson Institute for International Economics, July 2020

China has an unfair advantage in the EU Market: What can be done to level the playing field?
Bruegel, July 2020

China’s targeted corporate shopping spree to continue, especially in Europe
Bruegel, July 2020

China and the Trans-Pacific Partnership: In or out?
Peterson Institute for International Economics, June 2020

Australia’s strategic shift to the United States infuriates China
Carnegie Europe, June 2020

China’s focus remains firmly fixed on domestic problems
Chatham House, June 2020

East Asia decouples from the United States: Trade war, Covid-19, and East Asia’s new trade blocs
Peterson Institute for International Economics, June 2020

China’s Indian Ocean ambitions: Investment, influence, and military advantage
Brookings Institution, June 2020

Reading tea leaves from China’s two sessions: Large monetary and fiscal stimulus and still no growth guarantee
Bruegel, May 2020

How images frame China’s role in African development
Chatham House, May 2020

Read this briefing on ‘China: From partner to rival’ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Clare Ferguson,

© Bernard Rouffignac / European Union, EP

Despite Parliament’s efforts to return to Strasbourg for its plenary sessions, the first session of October will again take place in Brussels, to avoid hundreds of people travelling to France during the coronavirus pandemic. The Covid‑19 emergency has also focused the agenda on efforts to ensure the health of the EU economy, particularly its financial markets.

A key moment in this session, however, will undoubtedly be the vote on Wednesday morning following the 2 October hearings concerning two changes in European Commission portfolios in a reorganisation made necessary following the former Trade Commissioner’s resignation. The International Trade Committee will hear Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis, nominated to take over the Trade portfolio, and the Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) committee will hear Mairead McGuinness, Commissioner-designate for Financial Stability, Financial Services and the Capital Markets Union.

As reflected in the importance given to the financial portfolio, the vital health of the EU financial market is another focus of the session. Council and Commission will make statements on the role of the European Supervisory Authorities in the Wirecard scandal on Wednesday afternoon, followed by a joint debate on financial services. With the effects of coronavirus on the business world as a backdrop, Parliament will focus on proposals for further development of the capital markets union, particularly to offer small businesses and individual investors a wider range of investment options and help drive the recovery. As the potentially misleading statements Wirecard made to its investors illustrate, coordinated supervisory powers could help to protect smaller businesses and investors. The ECON committee report tabled proposes to remove barriers to investment; set up an EU framework for digital finance that provides high data protection and privacy standards (and challenges the dominance of large technology companies); promote financial literacy; and for the EU to consider equivalence decisions for suitable third-country markets. Reflecting the rapidly changing nature of the financial markets, Members will then debate an ECON committee legislative-initiative report with recommendations to the European Commission on regulating digital finance. The report takes a closer look at the emerging risks in crypto-assets and the regulatory and supervisory challenges. Fintech provides unprecedented opportunities for both a more efficient and transparent financial sector – and for financial criminals to escape detection. The ECON committee would like the European Commission to propose comprehensive supervisory measures to regulate crypto-assets, such as Bitcoin, to boost cyber-resilience in view of the vulnerability of such virtual assets to cyber-attack, as well as to improve the management of associated data. One new Fintech solution, crowdfunding, is a growing way for innovative small companies to obtain access to finance. The digital nature of crowdfunding service platforms also lends itself well to cross-border calls for finance, opening up the possibilities for investors and companies alike. However, the platforms also require careful EU-wide regulation to ensure they are managed prudently and that investors are protected. On Monday evening, Members will vote on ECON committee reports at second reading on a regulation on European crowdfunding service providers (ECSP) for business and related changes to the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II). The texts include measures to authorise, supervise and set operational and organisational requirements for crowdfunding platforms, and focus on protecting investors. The Commission will also make a statement on the fight against money laundering, following the release of the FinCEN files, on Thursday morning.

However, the need for careful husbandry of financial resources in such difficult times is also greatly reinforcing the desire for good financial management of EU funding. On Monday evening, Members will hear Council and Commission statements on a possible rule of law conditionality in the framework of the multiannual financial framework negotiations, to link EU funding more closely to the respect of common EU values and will debate a legislative-initiative report on establishment of an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights.

The coronavirus pandemic also continues to have financial consequences for EU policy, and while Parliament has proposed new resources to fund the recovery, the budget for existing EU activities requires some adjustment. On Monday evening, Members will vote on amending budget No 7/2020, which updates the revenue side of the current EU budget, in view of the negative impact of coronavirus on the EU economic outlook, as well as other technical issues. Although income from value added tax and gross national income is falling as a result of the economic climate, and negative exchange rates have also had an impact, more positively, the amounts available from paid-up fines and penalties has increased. An update of the coronavirus measures is also expected to feature during the postponed European Council meeting of 1‑2 October, the conclusions of which Members will debate on Tuesday morning, as well as preparation of the next meeting, currently scheduled for 15‑16 October 2020.

One file that remains blocked in Council is the proposed directive to ensure gender balance on company boards, agreed by Parliament in 2013. Proven to improve the health, value and transparency of companies, Parliament has long supported the measures and called for progress on the file as recently as January 2020. Members will discuss the current state of play on Monday evening.

Turning to the EU’s ambition to achieve EU climate neutrality by 2050, a debate on Tuesday afternoon will discuss the Commission’s proposal for a new European Climate Law. While the Commission is proposing a 55 % reduction in EU GHG emissions by 2030, Parliament’s Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Committee (ENVI) is calling for greater ambition with an increased reduction target of 60 %. The ENVI committee calls for net-zero emissions by 2050 at the latest in the EU and in each Member State, and negative emissions after 2050. The vote on this file will determine Parliament’s position for trilogue negotiations once the Council adopts its position. A vital resource in the fight against climate change, for the European ecosystem and to rural economies, forests and woods cover almost half of the EU’s land surface. However, to date the EU has no policy on forests and the forestry sector, meaning that management of this precious resource is somewhat fragmented. Members will debate a report on Tuesday afternoon on the way forward for a European forest strategy. The strategy could pave the way for an ambitious approach to sustainable forest management that bridges the gap between national forest policies and EU objectives relating to forests, such as the European Green Deal and the 2030 biodiversity strategy

Written by Elena Lazarou and Tania Lațici,

© Rawf8 / Adobe Stock

Permanent structured cooperation (PESCO) was launched in December 2017 with the participation of 25 EU Member States. It operates on the basis of concrete projects and binding commitments, several of which are geared towards strengthening the EU defence sector. PESCO members are committed to increasing national defence budgets and defence investment expenditure, and to investing more in defence research and technology. In addition, they have pledged to develop and provide ‘strategically relevant’ defence capabilities and to act jointly and make use of the financial and practical support provided by the European Defence Fund. Finally, they are committed to contributing to projects that boost the European defence industry and the European defence technological and industrial base.

Discussions on long-awaited rules on third-country participation in PESCO projects are ongoing in September 2020. A strategic review of PESCO should take place by the end of 2020. The review will assess PESCO’s strengths and weaknesses and it is expected to provide new information aimed at improving the implementation and development of new EU defence capabilities and capacities through PESCO. Critics argue that the end goal of PESCO projects has still to be contextualised within the wider debate on an EU strategic culture and a concrete vision about the ambition of EU security and defence policy. They also emphasise the need to align PESCO priorities with those identified by parallel EU defence initiatives, as well as with the capability needs of the EU.

The European Parliament is expected to vote on a resolution on PESCO in October 2020.

PESCO projects, participants and EDIDP funding

Read the complete briefing on ‘PESCO: Ahead of the strategic review‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘PESCO: Ahead of the strategic review’ on YouTube.

Written by Marie-Laure Augère-Granier,

© Simone van den Berg / Adobe Stock

The 150 million pigs reared across the EU represent the largest livestock category before that of bovines, and the EU pig meat sector alone accounts for nearly half of total EU meat production. Germany, Spain and France contribute more than half of the total amount of pig meat produced in the EU. The sector is highly diverse, with huge differences in rearing methods and farm sizes across the Member States: from backyard farming to industrial installations with thousands of animals.

Within the common agricultural policy (CAP), the pig meat sector is covered by the common organisation of markets regulating trade and providing support in the event of a sectoral crisis. Farmers can also receive rural development funding under the second pillar of the CAP, for example, to make necessary investments on their farms.

A large number of EU legislative acts apply to this sector, covering various aspects of pig farming: environmental protection, food safety and public health, organic production, animal health and welfare. However, evidence shows a lack of compliance with EU regulations on the welfare of pigs and the persistence of harmful routine practices. Another challenge is the air, soil and water pollution caused by intensive pig farming, which takes a heavy toll on the environment.

The EU is currently the world’s top exporter of pig meat products and its exports have been boosted by the fall in production in Asia, where African swine fever is decimating millions of animals. Increased demand for EU pork pushed prices to a peak in early 2020.

In the coming years, the pig production sector may be impacted by the evolution of the policy environment: negotiations on a new CAP are ongoing and the recently published Green Deal initiative and Farm to Fork strategy, both of which promote greener and more sustainable agriculture and food systems, mention the future revision of legislation relevant to the pig sector, including on animal welfare.

Read the complete briefing on ‘The EU pig meat sector‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘The EU pig meat sector’ on YouTube.

Written by Eric Pichon,

© Gilles Paire / Adobe Stock

The August 2020 coup in Mali has once again demonstrated the instability of the Sahel. The region is affected by climate change and rapid population growth. Rivalries over access to livelihoods exacerbate grievances against states. Struggling to provide basic services throughout their territory and security at their borders, governments are competing with armed groups that have emerged from the failed regimes of Central Africa, North Africa and the Middle East. The instability in this region has direct consequences for the security of the European Union’s neighbours and for the EU itself.

In 2011, to respond to the multiple factors of this instability, the EU adopted the Sahel security and development strategy: the first comprehensive approach aimed at ensuring various external policy programmes and instruments converge towards common objectives. Despite the revamping of the strategy in 2015 based on the lessons learnt, its implementation, which involves the coordination of multiple stakeholders, has been difficult. While it has contributed to notable progress towards integration and regionalisation, security challenges have impeded tangible achievements in preventing radicalisation and fostering inclusive development. The Sahel action plan, adopted in 2015 to provide an overall framework for the implementation of the strategy, comes to an end in 2020; its revision (or replacement) will need to take the EU’s and Africa’s new geopolitical interests on board. As the EU endeavours to reconnect with Africa in a regional and full-fledged partnership, the successes and failures of the EU Strategy for the Sahel could inspire the whole EU development and security policy on the continent.

This briefing is a translated and revised version of Le Sahel: un enjeu stratégique pour l’Union européenne, of November 2017.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Understanding the EU Strategy for the Sahel‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘Understanding the EU Strategy for the Sahel’ on YouTube.

Written by Nera Kuljanic with Samuel Gregory-Manning,

© Bchyla / Adobe Stock

Biodiversity is in crisis across the globe: species extinctions and a loss of nature occurring at rates unprecedented in human history, and with the EU no exception, our biodiversity and the essential value it brings are under threat. Could ‘rewilding’ help restore Europe’s nature?

Biodiversity refers to the variety of life on Earth in all its forms and interactions: from the genetic level to individual species, right up to complex ecological communities. Biodiversity is essential for human life – from the air we breathe, to the food we eat and the water we drink. However, the over-exploitation of land and water, climate change, pollution and invasive species are exerting immense pressure on biodiversity and only 16 % of EU habitats and 23 % of EU species have favourable status, Europe’s biodiversity and its intrinsic social and economic value are under grave threat.

The EU biodiversity strategy for 2030 acknowledges the urgency of this crisis and its importance in tackling other existential threats such as climate change and pandemics. The strategy has ecosystem restoration at its core, which is also the main goal of ‘rewilding’, a conservation practice that is gaining increasing attention as a way to combat the crisis of biodiversity loss.

Potential impacts and developments

Rewilding can be broadly defined as the restoration of ecosystems and natural processes through the creation or upgrading of natural areas with minimal human activity, promoting the connectivity of these areas, and reintroducing integral species and their interactions. These are known as keystone species, playing a disproportionate role in the ecosystems they inhabit and vital to their healthy functioning. In Europe, keystone species include large carnivores that control and influence prey populations, such as the brown bear, grey wolf, lynx and wolverine, birds of prey (e.g. eagles and vultures), large grazing animals that promote plant diversity such as European bison and deer species, and ‘ecosystem engineers’ such as the Eurasian beaver.

The Natura 2000 network, part of the Birds and Habitats Directives, is a coordinated network of protected areas, currently covering 18 % of EU land and 6 % of EU marine territory. However, not all of the areas that fall under the network are strictly protected, with most privately owned; the effectiveness of the network is therefore limited by insufficient stakeholder participation and a lack of habitat connectivity and diversity covered. There are 60 active rewilding initiatives from non-profit and private organisations under way across Europe, from restoring the natural processes of the Oder river delta in Poland to the return of bison in the Carpathian mountains of Romania, and from reintroducing moose to a protected region in northern Denmark to establishing self-sustaining ecosystems in the Côa valley in Portugal.

Healthy ecosystems and their biodiversity are essential to human life on Earth, with complex biological functions underpinning our societies and economies in the form of ecosystem services. These include essential processes that range from climate regulation and carbon sequestration and storage, and the delivery of clean air and water, to plant pollination, soil formation, and the production of goods, medicinal resources, raw materials and energy. In their current degraded state, European ecosystems’ capability to deliver these vital services is reduced. In restoring these ecosystems, the beneficial services they provide would also be restored: their economic value in agriculture and fisheries; habitats acting as natural carbon dioxide sinks to limit climate change; increased climate resilience to natural disasters such as droughts, flooding and wildfires; greater food security; reducing the risk of and increasing resilience to future diseases. Nature also has cultural importance, offering people aesthetic and spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, and recreation opportunities. As well as the benefits to physical health from cleaner air and water, nature also has positive effects on mental health in alleviating anxiety, depression and stress.

Rural depopulation and the abandonment of farmland is an increasing and ongoing phenomenon in Europe. Rewilding initiatives could play a part in trans-European green infrastructure initiatives to repurpose this abandoned land, increasing biodiversity and stimulating local economies. Marine environments are particularly difficult to protect, due to the myriad pressures they face and the inherent complexity in working within them, and have therefore made less progress in their recovery under the Natura 2000 network. Restoring nature is not limited to just wilderness; Europe’s increasingly urban population would benefit from greener cities with accessible and connected urban forests and parks, and reduced use of pesticides and harmful management, allowing biodiversity to return.

Large animals do pose risks to human safety. While wild animals are generally wary of humans, and direct attacks on people are rare, increasing numbers of these species could result in increased incidence of human-wildlife conflict. Fears around apex predators are culturally ingrained throughout Europe, with many persecuted to local extinction; indeed, where some species have been increasing in number, old conflicts have returned. European attitudes to the return of wildlife differ between rural and urban communities, with the latter more likely to hold favourable views towards rewilding schemes. Those living in rural areas will have legitimate concerns and will be the most likely to encounter conflict with wildlife, specifically pertaining to the loss of livestock, damage to crops, or drastic changes to their environment.

Ecological restoration can be limited where habitats are heavily degraded and require high levels of intervention, as well as where the area required for certain ecological processes and large animals is simply not available or poorly connected. Several large animal species in Europe are extinct, while others have been locally extinct for centuries; species occupying similar ecological niches can fulfil these missing roles, such as semi-wild cattle replacing the extinct bovines, the aurochs. Where a self-sustaining ecosystem is not attainable or a long time in coming, active management may be required, which raises questions regarding the level of management required or whether the term ‘rewilding’ in such situations is appropriate. Indeed, debate exists amongst ecologists surrounding the exact definition, while the semi-wild managed Dutch nature reserve Oostvaardersplassen, for example, has been the subject of much controversy, particularly when thousands of animals died from starvation.

Anticipatory policy-making

In light of the insufficient progress made by the previous strategy in halting the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services degradation, the EU biodiversity strategy for 2030 builds upon existing legislation to commit to an expansion of 30 % of EU land and 30 % of EU seas as protected Natura 2000 network areas. Promoting the connectivity of these areas will be essential for their functional viability, to allow for animal movement and sufficient genetic exchange between populations, and to enhance ecosystem service delivery. Habitats and ecosystems across Europe are heterogeneous, which means that policies relating to their unique attributes will have to be equally diverse; specific coordination and cooperation with local communities and stakeholders will be integral to the success of ecological restoration projects.

The strategy plays a key role in the European Green Deal, highlighting the need to tackle biodiversity loss conjointly with tackling climate change. It is also linked to the Farm to Fork strategy, with commitments to reduce pesticide use, establish biodiverse habitat on 10 % of farmland and manage 25 % of agro-ecological farmland. Proposed reform of the Common Agricultural Policy could offer results-based payment schemes to give farmers an incentive to invest actively in facilitating the transition to a more sustainable food system in which production and biodiversity can co-exist.

The European green infrastructure strategy aims to serve both people and nature, and could work to stimulate rural areas by providing jobs, making sustainable practices in farming more profitable and offering alternative sources of income, such as tourism. Assessment of suitable areas and potential risks in establishing this trans-European infrastructure will be required.

Many keystone species in Europe are already protected under current EU legislation. Recent years have seen calls for greater exemptions to cull species of large carnivores that are deemed to pose an economic threat. As populations continue to stabilise and increase, sustained and coordinated conflict mitigation with relevant stakeholders will be required, expanding upon existing compensation and other mitigation measures.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘What if ‘rewilding’ could help reverse biodiversity loss in Europe?‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘What if ‘rewilding’ could help reverse biodiversity loss in Europe?’ on YouTube.

Written by Nicole Scholz,

© Leigh Prather / Adobe Stock

On 17 June 2020, the European Commission presented a strategy to accelerate the development, manufacturing and deployment of vaccines against the coronavirus disease (Covid-19). The strategy aims to secure high quality, safe, effective and affordable Covid-19 vaccines for all in the EU within 12-18 months, if not earlier. To this end, the Commission has started to enter into advance purchase agreements with vaccine producers on behalf of the EU Member States. With the Coronavirus Global Response initiative and its participation in the COVAX facility, the EU is also positioning itself as a leader of global solidarity effort to speed up universal access to vaccines.

Context and main elements

A vaccine against the coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) is considered to be the most likely permanent solution to stop the pandemic. As of 28 September 2020, 191 vaccine candidates are under development worldwide, with 40 being tested in humans. Vaccine development is complex, risky and costly and often lasts 10 to 15 years. The Commission’s two-pillar Covid-19 vaccines strategy proposes centralised procurement to secure vaccine supplies in a compressed timeframe. The objectives: ensuring vaccine quality, safety and efficacy; securing swift access to vaccines for Member States and their population while leading the global solidarity effort; and ensuring equitable access to an affordable vaccine as early as possible. The Commission seeks to diversify its vaccine candidate portfolio with different technologies and different companies. The strategy’s first pillar consists of securing the production of sufficient quantities of vaccines in the EU through advance purchase agreements with vaccine producers. In return for the right to buy a given number of vaccine doses for a set price, the Commission will finance part of the upfront costs faced by vaccine producers through advance purchase agreements. As the Commission points out, the high cost and failure rate make investing in a Covid-19 vaccine a high-risk decision for vaccine companies, and the agreements will allow investments to be made that otherwise ‘would simply probably not happen’. Once any of the vaccines proves successful, the Member States will be able to buy it directly from the company. Funding is considered a down payment on the vaccines that will actually be bought by the Member States. The agreements will be financed through the €2.7 billion Emergency Support Instrument (ESI), which Member States have the possibility to top up. According to the German Council Presidency, ‘a significant number of Member States already made a concrete financial commitment to increase the ESI budget’. The strategy’s second pillar involves adapting the EU’s regulatory framework to the current urgency while maintaining vaccine quality, safety and efficacy standards. The regulatory flexibilities offered by EU pharmaceuticals legislation can be used to speed up authorisation and availability of Covid-19 vaccines without compromising on standards. This includes early engagement with the European Medicines Agency (EMA) (Covid-19 EMA pandemic task force) and international cooperation; an accelerated procedure for authorisation (conditional authorisation); and flexibility as regards labelling and packaging (alleviating the language requirements). As some of the vaccine candidates are based on attenuated viruses or viral vectors that may fall under the definition of a genetically modified organism (GMO), the Commission proposed in June 2020 a regulation for a temporary derogation from certain rules for clinical trials of medicinal products involving GMOs. The procedure was treated urgently and the regulation entered into force on 18 July.

Parliament’s position and MEPs’ views

In a July 2020 resolution, Parliament called for ‘EU joint procurement to be used for the purchase of Covid‑19 vaccines and treatments, and for it to be used more systematically to avoid Member States competing against each other and to ensure equal and affordable access to important medicines and medical devices’, including new vaccines. On 7 September, Members of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) debated the vaccines strategy with Sandra Gallina, Deputy Director-General of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety (SANTE). MEPs raised the issue of liability for vaccine producers, underlining that there should be no exceptions from current rules. The ENVI Chair stressed the need for transparency to achieve trust in Covid-19 vaccines and regretted that more information on the agreements had not been shared proactively. During a September joint hearing on Covid-19 vaccines, held by ENVI and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE), MEPs questioned representatives of vaccine producers, academia, civil society and the EMA on advance purchase agreements, costs, patents and clinical trial data, as well as transparency.

EU’s role in global efforts

Under the Coronavirus Global Response, launched by the Commission in May, €15.9 billion has been pledged for universal access to tests, treatments and vaccines against coronavirus. It complements the Access to Covid-19 Tools Accelerator (ACT-A) global collaborative framework launched in April, which brings together governments, scientists, businesses, civil society, philanthropists and health organisations with the aim to accelerate development, production and equitable access to Covid-19 diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccines. On 18 September, ‘Team Europe‘ – the Commission and the 27 Member States – joined COVAX, the ACT-A’s vaccine pillar. COVAX aims to get wealthier countries to sign up to help finance vaccines for low- and middle-income countries. According to the Commission, Team Europe will contribute to COVAX with €400 million in cash and guarantees: an initial €230 million in cash through a loan from the European Investment Bank, backed by the same amount in guarantees provided by the EU budget, will be complemented with €170 million in financial guarantees from the EU budget. EU participation in COVAX is complementary to negotiations with vaccine companies under the strategy, the Commission says.

The ongoing European Citizens’ Initiative ‘Right to Cure‘ calls on the EU ‘to put public health before private profit [and] make anti-pandemic vaccines and treatments a global public good, freely accessible to everyone’. Stakeholder views

In a letter to Health Commissioner Stella Kyriakides, the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) considers it crucial that any agreements concluded with vaccine developers, including possible liability arrangements, are fully transparent, and everyone has access to information about vaccines. Consumers should benefit from quick and effective compensation schemes if they suffer an adverse reaction. BEUC notes that, in principle, vaccine developers need to remain liable for the products they develop and should be required to maintain strict post-marketing and surveillance. In a joint statement, six health groups request more transparency in the governance of the purchase agreements, including the EU’s spending on Covid-19 vaccines; high regulatory assessment standards; transparency of the joint procurement process; and transparent liability clauses to make sure responsibilities are fairly shared. In its report on pharmaceutical industry lobbying during the pandemic, the Corporate Europe Observatory bemoans that the advance purchase agreements ‘are being negotiated in the dark’ and use public money to remove financial risk and liability from the vaccine companies without corresponding public interest conditions.

State of play and next steps

Two contracts have so far been signed. A first agreement with AstraZeneca to purchase 300 million doses, with an option to buy 100 million more, entered into force on 27 August. A €336 million down payment was reportedly made. An agreement with Sanofi-GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) to purchase up to 300 million doses entered into force on 18 September. As the Commission points out, exploratory talks have been concluded with: Johnson and Johnson for an initial purchase of 200 million doses and the possibility to buy 200 million more; CureVac for an initial 225 million doses; Moderna for an initial 80 million doses and the option to buy up to a further 80 million; BioNTech-Pfizer for an initial 200 million doses and an optional 100 million more. ‘Intensive discussions’ continue with other companies, reportedly including Novavax and ReiThera. According to the DG SANTE Deputy Director-General, the first vaccinations should take place by the end of 2020, and a large number of vaccine doses should become available in the first part of 2021. Vaccines would be distributed to EU Member States based on population size. It would be up to Member States to decide who will be vaccinated first. Prices would range from €5-15 per dose to assure affordability for all Member States.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Coronavirus vaccines strategy‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Katrien Luyten and Anita Orav,

© aalutcenko / Adobe Stock

The ‘hotspot approach’ was presented by the European Commission as part of the European Agenda on Migration in April 2015, when record numbers of refugees, asylum-seekers and other migrants flocked to the EU. The ‘hotspots’ – first reception facilities – aim to improve coordination of the EU agencies’ and national authorities’ efforts at the external borders of the EU, in the initial reception, identification, registration and fingerprinting of asylum-seekers and migrants. Even though other Member States also have the possibility to benefit from the hotspot approach, only Greece and Italy host hotspots.

In Greece, the hotspot approach remains the key strategy in addressing migratory pressures. The EU-Turkey Statement of March 2016, closely linked to the implementation of the hotspot approach in Greece, led to a considerable drop in irregular migration flows from Turkey to the EU. However, returns of irregular migrants to Turkey – a cornerstone of the agreement – are low. The deteriorating relationship between Turkey and the EU is putting the agreement under increasing pressure.

The hotspot approach was also set up to contribute to the temporary emergency relocation mechanisms that – between September 2015 and September 2017 – helped to transfer asylum-seekers from Greece and Italy to other EU Member States. Even though 96 % of the people eligible had been relocated by the end of March 2018, relocation numbers were far from the targets originally set and the system led to tensions with Czechia, Hungary and Poland, which refused to comply with the mechanism.

Since their inception, the majority of the hotspots have suffered from overcrowding, and concerns have been raised by stakeholders with regard to camp facilities and living conditions – in particular for vulnerable migrants and asylum-seekers – and to gaps in access to asylum procedures. These shortcomings cause tensions among the migrants and with local populations and have already led to violent protests. On 8 September 2020, a devastating fire in the Moria camp, on Lesvos, only aggravated the existing problems. The European Parliament has called repeatedly for action to ensure that the hotspot approach does not endanger the fundamental rights of asylum-seekers and migrants.

This briefing updates two earlier ones published in March 2016 and in June 2018.

Read this briefing on ‘Hotspots at EU external borders: State of play‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Hotspots in Greece and in Italy

Written by Maria Diaz Crego, Rafał Mańko and Wouter van Ballegooiij,

© European Union, 2020

Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) lays down the founding values of the European Union, referring to ‘human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities’. The provision defines the constitutional core of the European Union through a set of values that are shared by the Member States. The EU’s founding values are binding not only on the EU institutions, but also on the Member States, as both candidate countries and Member States are required to comply with the EU’s founding values by virtue of the Treaties (Articles 7 and 49 TEU) and certain consequences are attached to situations where such values are not observed (for example, the impossibility to accede to the EU or the possibility of sanctions).

EU primary law provides for various mechanisms that can and have been used to monitor, prevent breaches of, or enforce EU values within the Member States, namely, the two procedures provided for under Article 7 TEU (preventive and sanctions), infringement procedures (Articles 258-259 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union − TFEU) and preliminary references (Article 267 TFEU). While the first mechanisms are to be used only in cases of systemic threats or breaches of EU values and are characterised by the leading role assumed by the Council of the European Union (Council, hereafter) and the European Council, the two other mechanisms can be described as judicial tools with regard to which the European Court of Justice assumes a major role.

Although the Treaties already provide for a range of tools that can be deployed to protect EU values within Member States, since 2007 the EU institutions have established a wide range of other mechanisms to monitor and prevent breaches of EU values in Member States. Between 2012 and 2014, the EU institutions created three monitoring and preventive tools to that end. The Commission launched its Justice Scoreboard in 2013, aimed at measuring the efficiency, quality and independence of the Member States’ justice systems, and feeding into the European Semester process for economic governance. A year later, in 2014, the European Commission established its rule of law framework, a preventive mechanism aimed at addressing threats to EU values before Article 7 TEU procedures are launched, and finally the Council decided to set up its annual dialogues on the rule of law.

However, these new mechanisms have not exhausted the discussion on the adequacy of the EU toolbox to address Member States’ deficiencies regarding EU values. In October 2016, Parliament called on the Commission to establish an EU pact on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, to monitor compliance with those values in the Member States. Although the Commission did not take up the proposal to start with, in 2019, it decided to take stock of experience gained from applying the existing mechanisms to different Member States and launched a broad debate on how to strengthen the EU mechanisms to address common values deficiencies in the Member States. As a result, the Commission decided to establish a Rule of Law Review Cycle (2019), a monitoring tool that has yet to bear fruit, with the European Commission issuing its first rule of law report in September 2020. In a similar vein, as part of the 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework (MFF) legislative package, the Commission put forward a proposal for a regulation establishing rule of law conditionality, allowing EU institutions to withdraw or suspend EU funds for Member States with systemic deficiencies in that regard. At the time of writing, the proposal is still being considered by the co-legislators, although the introduction of rule of law conditionality was announced after the European Council special meeting of 17-21 July 2020 at which a political agreement was reached on the 2021-2027 MFF.

Taking these elements into account, this study aims to analyse the existing and proposed mechanisms for monitoring, prevention and enforcement of EU values within the Member States. The focus will be on their scope of application, the main procedural features and their effectiveness in addressing shortcomings in Member States as regards compliance with the common EU values enshrined in Article 2 TEU.

Read the complete ‘in-depth analysis’ on ‘Protecting EU common values within the Member States: An overview of monitoring, prevention and enforcement mechanisms at EU level‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© IlonaAutukaite / Adobe Stock

Since the end of the holiday season, the rate of Covid-19 infection has increased to levels now unseen since their peak in April 2020. Many cities, regions and now countries, have had to reinforce preventive measures. An increasing number of governments around the world already face a dilemma over whether or not to return to strict confinement, which would further cripple their economies. In this context, this year’s UN General Assembly, witnessed a bizarre digital stand-off between the Presidents of the United State and China, as they compete respectively for domestic and global approval of their handling of the pandemic.

This note offers links to recent commentaries and reports from international think tanks on coronavirus and related issues. Earlier publications on the coronavirus can be found in the previous item in this series, published by EPRS on 4 September 2020.

Europe and the Covid-19 crisis
Centre for European Policy Studies, September 2020

How Brussels sees the future of Europe after Covid-19
European Policy Centre, September 2020

How countries are holding elections during the Covid-19 pandemic
Council on Foreign Relations, September 2020

Protectionism is the wrong answer to Corona: Globalization increases prosperity
Bertelsmann Stiftung, September 2020

EU law in the time of Covid-19
European Policy Centre, September 2020

Employment and Covid-19
Bruegel, September 2020

Trade in pandemic time
Institut Jacques Delors, September 2020

A framework for evaluating approaches to symptom-screening in the workplace during the Covid-19 pandemic
Rand Corporation, September 2020

Covid-19: À bas la mondialisation, vive l’Europe ?
Institut français des relations internationales, September 2020

Géopolitique du Covid-19: Les analyses de l’Ifri
Institut français des relations internationales, September 2020

A New U.S. foreign policy for the post-pandemic landscape
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, September 2020

Algorithmic systems in the coronavirus pandemic
Bertelsmann Stiftung, September 2020

Russia after the Coronavirus crisis
German Marshall Fund, September 2020

After the pandemic: A view from the United States
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik

Just how do deaths due to Covid-19 stack up?
Council on Foreign Relations, September 2020

Ten facts about Covid-19 and the U.S. economy
Brookings Institution, September 2020

How the Netherlands can choose opt-outs from the EU coronavirus recovery fund
Cligendael, September 2020

Why the Covid-19 response needs international relations
Chatham House, September 2020

The pandemic as a test for the European asylum system
Istituto per gli Studi di Politica Internazionale, September 2020

Migration in a post-pandemic world
Istituto per gli Studi di Politica Internazionale, September 2020

Is development aid a victim of the EU budget deal?
Centre for European Reform, September 2020

Rebondir face au Covid-19: Neuf idées efficaces en faveur de l’emploi
Institut Montaigne, September 2020

Politics is wrecking America’s pandemic response
Brookings Institution, September 2020

The Covid-19 gender gap: How women’s experience and expertise will drive economic recovery
Chatham House, September 2020

Covid-19 exposes the fragility of Central Asia
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, September 2020

From survival to revival: How to help small businesses through the Covid-19 crisis
Brookings Institution, September 2020

New data shows small businesses in communities of color had unequal access to federal Covid-19 relief
Brookings Institution, September 2020

The consequence of Covid-19: How the United States moved from security provider to security consumer
Chatham House, September 2020

Is Covid-19 the end of US hegemony? Public bads, leadership failures and monetary hegemony
Chatham House, September 2020

Covid-19 et immigration: Le grand laisser-faire européen
Confrontations Europe, September 2020

Covid-19 in Palestine: A pandemic in the face of ‘settler colonial erasure’
Instituto Affari Internazionli, September 2020

Health partnerships: Views from East and West
Friends of Europe, September 2020

Connectivity in post-Covid-19 Eurasia
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, September 2020

How courageous schools partnering with local communities can overcome digital inequalities during Covid-19
Brookings Institution, September 2020

Orbán’s pandemic authoritarian grab
Heinrich Böll Stiftung, August 2020

Lutte contre le coronavirus: l’Uruguay, pays modèle en Amérique latine?
Fondation Jean Jaurès, September 2020

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

La Covid-19 aura réussi à contaminer la Commission européenne
Egmont, August 2020

Consequences of Covid-19 in ASEAN states
Polish Institute of International Affairs, August 2020

Social media platforms need to flatten the curve of dangerous misinformation
Heinrich Böll Stiftung, August 2020

Read this briefing on ‘Coronavirus: The second wave?‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Tarja Laaninen,

© famveldman / Adobe Stock

First there was panic-buying. There were concerns over safety: could one be infected by food? Realisation of the efforts of supermarket staff, truck drivers and warehouse staff to keep food coming to customers. Spring amidst closed borders awakened us to how much we depend on foreign farm workers to pick fruit and vegetables. There were campaigns for furloughed employees to go and work on farms. Then came news about the conditions endured by some foreign workers in the food-processing industry. The rollercoaster of the coronavirus crisis has changed our relationship with food, but whether just temporarily or for good, remains to be seen.

Panic-buying and border closures

In March 2020, the world as we know it came to a halt. Lockdowns to slow down the spread of the new coronavirus drove many people to panic buying and stockpiling. The reintroduction of border controls resulted in blocked transport routes and long queues at border posts. Sights of empty supermarket shelves created even more anxiety – even if the reason was just that the personnel could not keep up with the pace of people emptying their shops. Panic buyers caused unprecedented strain on supermarket firms around the world. At times, shops had to limit the amount of a certain product any one shopper could buy at one time. Some supermarkets dedicated early shopping hours to senior citizens and healthcare workers, to give them a better chance to access food. Online delivery services were unable to cope with demand.

With restaurants and catering services closed and people teleworking, home cooking became a necessity –with the exception of an occasional take-away or home delivery. Shelves emptied of flour as people took to – or at least planned to take up – home baking. Sales of long-life products and frozen foods shot up. Some differences between EU countries became evident: while Italians went for packaged mandarins, dried legumes and rabbit meat, the French chose poultry sausage, pasta and rice, whereas people in the United Kingdom most increased their purchases of canned meats, vitamins and soup. As restaurants closed, markets shrunk for some commodities, such as seafood and fries, both often consumed in restaurants. Demand shifted away from higher value items towards staple and ready-to-eat foods that can be stored.

As the schools shut, children were left without school meals. Furloughed employees, people made redundant, the self-employed and people working with zero-hour contracts suddenly found themselves in food insecurity, and food banks struggled with increasing numbers of customers.

On the other hand, there was solidarity and creativity: when the bars and restaurants closed, some of their kitchens started cooking for healthcare workers or for homeless people; donating to food banks; coffees and meals were given free to healthcare workers. People started looking after their neighbours, volunteering to shop for the elderly and vulnerable living nearby. There were campaigns to recruit people made unemployed by the crisis to work on local farms to help bring food to peoples’ tables. Schemes opened where consumers could support local restaurants or breweries during the lockdown by buying meals or drinks in advance, with the promise of free food and beer when the doors reopened.

Food safety concerns dismissed

Safety concerns concerning transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes coronavirus disease (Covid‑19) by food were quickly determined to be minimal. Although the virus can remain on packaging for some hours or even days, depending on the type of material and environmental conditions, a virus needs a living host (human or animal) to multiply. The risk of infection from food products or packages is thought to be very low compared to person-to-person transmission, as the number of virus particles coming out of a person’s mouth or nose is far greater than a few virus particles remaining on foods or packaging. Even if an infected person coughs or sneezes on the surface of food or its packaging, outside a body viruses gradually become weaker and lose the ability to actively infect. Currently, there is no evidence that the virus that causes Covid-19 spreads to people through food. In any case, as always, it is recommended to wash or disinfect hands after shopping, handling of food packages, and before preparing or eating food.

The uncertainties surrounding the new virus did, however, cause some trade disruption, and still in June, for example, China halted imports of European salmon for a short while after reports that the virus was discovered on equipment used for handling fish at a Beijing market.

Awareness of working conditions of some workers in the food chain

Measures put in place to slow the spread of Covid-19 also disrupted the functioning of food supply chains. Grounding of airlines caused problems for the export of higher value perishable food products, including seafood, fruit and vegetables. Close working conditions in packing and processing facilities put the workforce at risk of contracting Covid-19. Social distancing requirements also reduced the numbers of import and export inspectors at borders. Platform workers, such as people working through food delivery apps, kept working through the crisis, delivering food and goods to the homes of those in quarantine or self-isolation. The crisis highlighted how these kinds of atypical workers lack basic social protection such as paid sick leave.

Other uneasy aspects of our current food system also became apparent, such as our dependence on seasonal farm workers to come from abroad to harvest much of our berries, fruit and vegetables. An estimated 800 000 to 1 million seasonal workers are hired in the EU each year, mainly in the agri-food sector. Not only that, there are countless undocumented migrants working 14 or 15-hour days on farms for as little as three or four euros an hour. Without contracts, they have no access to health care. In their camps, they rarely have reliable supplies of drinking water and live packed together.

In many countries, meat processing plants saw a high number of their employees becoming infected with coronavirus. This highlighted the working conditions in these establishments, with people working shoulder to shoulder without social distancing, and the cool and humid conditions favourable for the persistence of the virus. In addition, such work is often done by a low-paid migrant workforce brought in by subcontractors, and under pressure to continue working even when displaying symptoms.

What have we already learnt?

If anything, the very start of the crisis showed that people can still change overnight into unpredictable, panicked individuals. The daily availability of food in the supermarket was no longer the certainty it used to be. The pandemic provides an opportunity to learn more about vulnerabilities in the food system, in order to identify necessary investments and reforms that would further strengthen its resilience. In its new Farm to Fork Strategy, the European Commission announced in May 2020 that it will propose a ‘food contingency plan’ in 2021, with the aim of ensuring food supply and food security in the EU. At an informal meeting of EU agriculture ministers in Koblenz in September 2020, the ministers discussed lessons from the coronavirus pandemic to sustainably strengthen European supply chains, and to make the food and agricultural sectors even more resilient to crises. For example, the EU is highly dependent on imports from third countries of protein feed and certain active substances for veterinary medicinal products. The European Commission’s Joint Research Centre has launched a survey to monitor the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the EU’s agricultural-food supply chain.

In light of the ongoing pandemic and in anticipation of future ones, researchers are stressing the importance of thinking about what is needed to ensure resilient food systems. Reliance on long and complex supply chains and ‘just-in-time’ delivery needs rethinking. Increasing resilience could, for example, require enriching the current food system with shorter supply chains creating a richer ecosystem of foods. Local provision of ‘critical’ products might include not only medical supplies and healthcare equipment, but also basic food – which could have important implications for the costs of food. Instead of seeing shocks as an abnormal thing, we are now moving to thinking that shocks will be a regular occurrence and we need food systems that will be able to deal with those shocks when they arrive. The European Commission has also announced in its ‘Farm to Fork’ strategy that it will make a proposal for a ‘legislative framework for sustainable food systems‘ in 2023.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘How the coronavirus pandemic shook up our relationship with food‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Maria Niestadt,

© Adobe Stock

To raise awareness of the importance of tourism, we mark World Tourism Day each year on 27 September. This year, however, World Tourism Day comes at a very particular time, with the tourism sector facing an unprecedented crisis due to the measures introduced to contain the spread of the coronavirus. In August 2020, the United Nations (UN) forecast a 58‑78 % reduction in international tourist arrivals in 2020. The crisis is affecting all countries, including several EU countries that are heavily dependent on tourism. Although travel has slowly restarted, travel demand and tourism confidence are at record lows and unemployment is rising across the sector. The same UN policy brief estimates that 100 to 120 million direct tourism jobs worldwide are at risk, with women, young people and informal workers the most vulnerable. National travel restrictions in response to an uptick in Covid‑19 case numbers suggest that the sector will continue to face uncertainty for the remainder of the year, and into the next.

Although the EU has few powers in the tourism area, it has played an important coordinating role, by issuing guidelines and recommendations to help EU countries gradually lift travel restrictions and allow the safe resumption of travel. It has also taken steps to coordinate national travel rules and advice, which are often inconsistent. Travellers are confused by the constantly changing rules and advice, while at the same time struggling to apply their rights, in particular when their journeys are cancelled due to the pandemic.

The EU has also worked to provide tourism businesses with much-needed liquidity and support to retain their workforce, in addition to helping EU countries support their tourism businesses by relaxing EU fiscal and State aid rules. Furthermore, tourism is one of the sectors that can benefit from the €750 billion European recovery instrument (Next Generation EU) and various programmes in the EU’s long-term budget – although the absence of a dedicated budget line for tourism does not make it easy to quantify the amounts that will go to support the sector.

Parliament is following developments in the tourist sector with a keen interest. In a June 2020 resolution, it made suggestions for additional tourism support measures, including a dedicated budget line in the EU budget. Parliament has also called for a move to more sustainable forms of tourism that respect both the environment and our cultural heritage.

Written by Magdalena Pasikowska-Schnass,

© Andrey Kuzmin / Adobe Stock

Since 2001, Europe has marked European Day of Languages each year on 26 September, in order to focus attention on its rich linguistic diversity. The European Union boasts 24 official languages, and around 60 regional and minority languages are spoken across the Member States. Europe’s linguistic mosaic also includes a variety of sign languages spoken by half a million people, heritage languages such as ancient Greek and Latin, as well as Esperanto – a planned international language created in Europe.

According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (Unesco), many world languages, including European ones, are endangered and could disappear due to the dominant role of languages such as English with a huge population of native speakers and other learners. Regional and minority languages (RMLs) together with smaller state languages – the ‘lesser-used languages’ – are under serious threat of extinction.

This threat is exacerbated by digital technology. The future of RMLs depends to some extent on their presence in new digital media. Young people communicate and seek information mainly via the internet. If online content is only available in dominant languages, lesser-used languages could become ‘digitally extinct’. However, digital technology is not necessarily a death sentence; it can also offer a rescue kit. Online education, online language learning and language technologies can help revitalise endangered languages. To achieve this objective, huge efforts are needed by speakers’ communities and language technology specialists to gather data, analyse and process it, in order to create language tools. With such tools, young people can create content in lesser-used languages and expand their use.

Read the complete briefing on ‘European Day of Languages: Digital survival of lesser-used languages‘ 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 from citizens calling upon the EU to evacuate all refugees and asylum seekers from the hotspots on the Aegean islands to safe locations with humane living conditions. Citizens also appeal to the EU to put the rights of refugees and asylum seekers at the core of the EU’s migration strategy, based on a system of quotas and a fair distribution of asylum seekers between the EU countries.

Citizens first began to write to the President on this subject in September 2020 following the devastating fires in the Moria refugee camp. President Sassoli reacted immediately, pointing out in his statements the need for a humane and effective migration policy. On 17 September 2020, the European Parliament held a debate on the need for an immediate and humanitarian EU response to the current situation in the refugee camp in Moria.

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, Italian, German, Spanish and French).

Main points made in the reply in English

Following the fires in Moria camp, President Sassoli stated on 9 and 10 September 2020 that ‘the images from Moria are devastating. We have to mobilise to support the women, men and children who need a roof over their heads immediately’. He added that ‘we need strong and lasting solutions for a humane, effective migration policy’.

The European Parliament held a plenary debate on the situation in Moria on 17 September 2020. You can watch the recording online.

The European Commission has financed the emergency evacuation of 400 unaccompanied minors from the camp, as well as temporary shelter for 1 600 people on a ferry in Lesbos. EU countries have provided further assistance through the EU’s Civil Protection Mechanism.

Concerning the EU’s asylum and migration policy, please note that as long ago as 2016, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the situation in the Mediterranean and the need for a holistic EU approach to migration, in which saving lives is pointed out as a first priority.

The European Parliament and the other EU institutions, as well as EU countries, are intensifying efforts to establish an effective, humanitarian and safe European migration policy. By deploying different programmes, over 528 000 people have been rescued in the Mediterranean since 2015, and the EU has provided support to both Greece and Turkey to help them manage migratory pressures.

Nonetheless, certain proposed reforms of EU migration policy, such as on a permanent EU relocation mechanism, or on amending the 2013 Dublin Regulation, have been withdrawn due to lack of agreement amongst the governments of EU countries.

More information on EU asylum and migration policy can be found in a briefing on solidarity in EU asylum policy by the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS), in an animated infographic on migration and asylum also by EPRS, and in European Parliament Fact Sheets.

Main points made in the reply in Italian

A seguito degli incendi nel campo di Moria, il 9 e il 10 settembre 2020 il Presidente Sassoli ha dichiarato che ‘le immagini che arrivano dal campo di Moria sono devastanti. Dobbiamo mobilitarci in sostegno di donne, uomini e bambini che necessitano di un tetto, immediatamente’. Ha inoltre aggiunto che ‘abbiamo bisogno di soluzioni forti e durature per una politica migratoria umana ed efficace’.

Il 17 settembre 2020 il Parlamento ha tenuto una discussione in Aula sulla situazione a Moria. La registrazione del dibattito è disponibile on line.

La Commissione europea ha finanziato l’evacuazione di emergenza di 400 minori non accompagnati dal campo, nonché alloggi temporanei su un traghetto a Lesbo per 1 600 persone. I paesi dell’UE hanno fornito ulteriore assistenza attraverso il meccanismo di protezione civile dell’UE.

Per ciò che riguarda la politica dell’UE in materia di asilo e migrazione, richiamiamo l’attenzione sul fatto che già nel 2016 il Parlamento europeo aveva approvato una risoluzione sulla situazione nel Mediterraneo e la necessità di un approccio globale dell’UE alla migrazione, in cui si sottolinea come salvare vite umane sia la priorità assoluta.

Il Parlamento europeo e le altre istituzioni dell’UE, così come i paesi dell’UE, stanno intensificando gli sforzi per istituire una politica migratoria europea efficace, umanitaria e sicura. Mediante l’attuazione di diversi programmi, dal 2015 sono state salvate nel Mediterraneo oltre 528 000 persone e l’UE ha fornito sostegno sia alla Grecia che alla Turchia per aiutarle a gestire le pressioni migratorie.

Tuttavia, alcune proposte di riforma della politica migratoria dell’UE, quali un meccanismo permanente di ricollocazione dell’UE o la modifica del regolamento Dublino del 2013, sono state ritirate a causa della mancanza di accordo tra i governi dei paesi dell’UE.

Maggiori informazioni sulla politica dell’UE in materia di asilo e migrazione sono disponibili in un briefing sul tema della solidarietà nel quadro della politica di asilo dell’UE a cura del Servizio Ricerca del Parlamento europeo (EPRS), in un ‘infografica animata sulla migrazione e l’asilo, anch’essa a cura dell’EPRS, e nelle note sintetiche del Parlamento europeo.

Main points made in the reply in German

Zu dem Brand im Lager Moria erklärte Parlamentspräsident Sassoli am 9. September 2020: „Die Bilder aus Moria sind niederschmetternd. Wir müssen handeln und den Frauen, Männern und Kindern helfen, die schleunigst ein Dach über dem Kopf brauchen.“ Am 10. September fügte er hinzu: „Wir brauchen solide und dauerhafte Lösungen für eine humane und wirksame Migrationspolitik.“

Zur Lage in Moria gab es am 17. September 2020 auch eine Debatte im Rahmen der Plenartagung des Europäischen Parlaments. Die Aufzeichnung dieser Debatte ist online abrufbar.

Die Europäische Kommission hat eine Noträumung finanziert, um 400 unbegleitete Minderjährige aus dem Lager zu bringen, und dafür gesorgt, dass 1 600 Menschen vorübergehend auf einer Fähre unterkommen, die im Hafen von Lesbos vor Anker liegt. Auch die EU-Mitgliedstaaten haben im Rahmen des Katastrophenschutzverfahrens der Union Hilfe geleistet.

Mit Blick auf die Asyl- und Migrationspolitik der EU hat das Europäische Parlament bereits 2016 eine Entschließung zur Lage im Mittelmeerraum und zur Notwendigkeit eines ganzheitlichen Migrationskonzepts der EU angenommen. Darin betont es, dass die Rettung von Menschenleben absoluten Vorrang haben muss.

Das Europäische Parlament, die sonstigen Organe und Einrichtungen der EU und die Mitgliedstaaten bemühen sich verstärkt um eine wirksame, humanitäre und sichere europäische Migrationspolitik. Mithilfe verschiedener Programme konnten seit 2015 über 528 000 Menschen aus dem Mittelmeer gerettet werden. Außerdem unterstützt die EU sowohl Griechenland als auch die Türkei bei der Bewältigung des Migrationsdrucks.

Einige Vorschläge zur Reform der Migrationspolitik der EU – etwa eine dauerhafte Umsiedlungsregelung der EU oder eine Änderung der Dublin-Verordnung von 2013 – wurden jedoch zurückgezogen, weil die Regierungen der EU-Mitgliedstaaten auf keinen gemeinsamen Nenner kamen.

Weitere Informationen über die Asyl- und Migrationspolitik der EU finden Sie im Briefing zur Solidarität in der EU-Asylpolitik des Wissenschaftlichen Dienstes des Europäischen Parlaments (EPRS), in der animierten Infografik zu Migration und Asyl des EPRS und in den Kurzdarstellungen des Europäischen Parlaments.

Main points made in the reply in Spanish

Tras los incendios del campo de Moria, el presidente Sassoli declaró los días 9 y 10 de septiembre de 2020 que «las imágenes de Moria son desoladoras. Tenemos que movilizarnos para prestar ayuda a las mujeres, los hombres y los niños que necesitan inmediatamente un techo bajo el que refugiarse». Añadió que «necesitamos soluciones firmes y duraderas para una política migratoria humanitaria y eficaz».

El Parlamento Europeo mantuvo un debate en el Pleno sobre la situación en Moria el 17 de septiembre de 2020. Puede usted consultar la grabación en línea.

La Comisión Europea ha financiado la evacuación de emergencia del campo de 400 menores no acompañados, así como un refugio temporal para 1 600 personas en un transbordador en Lesbos. Los países de la UE han proporcionado más ayuda a través del Mecanismo de Protección Civil de la UE.

En cuanto a la política de la Unión en materia de asilo y migración, cabe señalar que, ya en 2016, el Parlamento Europeo aprobó una Resolución sobre la situación en el mar Mediterráneo y la necesidad de un enfoque integral de la Unión sobre la migración, en la que se señala como primera prioridad el salvamento de vidas.

El Parlamento Europeo y las demás instituciones de la Unión, al igual que los Estados miembros, están intensificando sus esfuerzos para establecer una política europea de migración eficaz, humanitaria y segura. Con el despliegue de diferentes programas, más de 528 000 personas han sido rescatadas en el Mediterráneo desde 2015, y la UE ha prestado apoyo a Grecia y también a Turquía para ayudarles a gestionar las presiones migratorias.

Sin embargo, determinadas propuestas de reforma de la política de migración de la Unión, como la relativa a un mecanismo permanente de reubicación de la Unión o la modificación del Reglamento de Dublín de 2013 han sido retiradas debido a la falta de acuerdo entre los Gobiernos de los Estados miembros de la Unión.

Puede encontrarse más información sobre la política de asilo y migración de la UE en un briefing sobre la solidaridad en la política de asilo de la Unión, del Servicio de Estudios del Parlamento Europeo (EPRS), en una infografía animada sobre migración y asilo, también del EPRS y en las fichas temáticas del Parlamento Europeo.

Main points made in the reply in French

À la suite des feux survenus au camp de Moria, le président Sassoli a déclaré les 9 et 10 septembre 2020 que «les images du camp de Moria [étaient] bouleversantes» et que «nous [devions] immédiatement nous mobiliser et venir en aide aux femmes, hommes et enfants qui ont besoin d’un toit au-dessus de leur tête». Il a ajouté que «nous [avions] besoin de solutions solides et durables pour une politique migratoire humaine et efficace».

Le Parlement européen a tenu un débat en plénière sur la situation à Moria le 17 septembre 2020. L’enregistrement est disponible en ligne.

La Commission européenne a financé l’évacuation d’urgence de 400 mineurs non accompagnés du camp, ainsi que l’hébergement temporaire de 1 600 personnes sur un ferry à Lesbos. Les États membres ont fourni une aide supplémentaire par l’intermédiaire du mécanisme de protection civile de l’Union.

En ce qui concerne la politique de l’Union en matière d’asile et de migration, veuillez noter que le Parlement européen a adopté, dès 2016, une résolution sur la situation en Méditerranée et sur la nécessité d’une approche globale des migrations de la part de l’Union européenne, dans laquelle il est souligné que le sauvetage des vies doit être une priorité absolue.

Le Parlement européen, les autres institutions européennes, ainsi que les États membres redoublent d’efforts pour élaborer une politique migratoire européenne efficace, humaine et sûre. Plus de 528 000 personnes ont été secourues en Méditerranée depuis 2015 grâce à différents programmes. L’Union a également apporté son soutien à la Grèce et à la Turquie dans la gestion des pressions migratoires.

Néanmoins, certaines propositions de réforme de la politique migratoire de l’Union, telles qu’un mécanisme permanent de répartition au niveau de l’Union européenne, ou la modification du règlement de Dublin de 2013, ont été retirées en raison de l’absence d’accord entre les gouvernements des États membres.

De plus amples informations sur la politique européenne en matière d’asile et de migration sont disponibles dans une note d’information sur la solidarité dans la politique d’asile de l’Union et dans une infographie animée sur la migration et l’asile du service de recherche du Parlement européen, ainsi que dans les fiches thématiques du Parlement européen.

Written by Giulio Sabbati,

In May 2019, on a turnout of 51%, European Union citizens elected their representatives to the European Parliament for the next five years. On 31 January 2020, the United Kingdom withdrew from the Union. Of the 73 seats vacated by Members elected in the UK, 27 have been redistributed among 14 Member States, while 46 remain available for potential EU enlargements and/or the possible creation of a transnational constituency in the future. The number of seats in the Parliament has fallen from 751 to 705. The 705 MEPs elected have an average age of 51 years (with the youngest being 22 and the oldest 83). A majority of MEPs (415) are new to the Parliament. Women now represent 39.6% of all MEPs.

© European Union, 2020

Read this infographic on ‘Members of the European Parliament from February 2020‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Philip Boucher, Naja Bentzen, Tania Lațici, Tambiama Madiega, Leopold Schmertzing and Marcin Szczepański,

© European Union, 2020

Technological development has long been considered as a disruptive force, provoking change at many levels, from the routine daily activities of individuals to dramatic competition between global superpowers. This analysis examines disruption caused by technologies in a series of key areas of politics, economics and society. It focuses on seven fields: the economic system, the military and defence, democratic debates and the ‘infosphere’, social norms, values and identities, international relations, and the legal and regulatory system. It also presents surveillance as an example of how technological disruption across these domains can converge to propel other phenomena. The key disruptive force of 2020 is non-technological, namely coronavirus. The pandemic is used here as an opportunity to examine how technological disruption interacts with other forms of disruption.

Rapid and dramatic change

Disruption is a specific form of change which occurs relatively quickly or dramatically. Technology has long been seen as a source of disruption to our lives, communities and civilisations, provoking disruptive change at all scales, from individuals’ routine daily activities to dramatic competition between global superpowers. This disruption can have both positive and negative effects, although they are often unevenly distributed across different groups.

In the current wave of data-driven internet technologies, the disruptive force of innovation has become a central feature of many firms’ business models. However, the key disruptive force of 2020, the coronavirus pandemic, is non-technological. In this context, technologies have been deployed as an antidote to disruption, not least in enabling some social and economic activities to continue while maintaining physical distance.

Disruption by technology

Technology development disrupts the economic system by creating (and destroying) certain business models, supply chains and patterns of employment. In defence, technological innovation has a disruptive effect on all aspects of military activity, from logistics and training to strategic decision-making and physical combat.

Democratic debates have been disrupted by technology developments such as social media. Many of these online platforms benefit from emotional, polarising content and sometimes promote disinformation that can increase rifts in society and undermine democratic processes, whereas facts and information rarely go viral. Social norms, values and identities have also been disrupted by technologies, affecting our most profound understanding of ourselves, our activities and relationships with others.

Disruption to international relations has also been attributed to technology development, adjusting the global balance of power, and even transforming the international system itself. In response to these disruptions, laws and regulations are changing towards a more flexible approach to policy-making, with the emergence of smart regulatory tools.

Converging disruptions

Disruptions in these different domains converge, along with other disruptive forces such as the coronavirus, to propel other phenomena such as extended state and commercial surveillance.

Often, technology disruption can provoke the same kind of tensions at different scales. For example, access to information that informs citizens’ voting and purchasing decisions is unevenly distributed, in the same way as it is for company directors and world leaders making strategic choices. Likewise, households, small businesses, large multinationals and nation states all need to find a means of working together with digital tools to make good decisions while maintaining their autonomy.

It is not clear where these tensions will lead us, but our path in this increasingly technology-dependent world will be decided to a great extent by the social, political, and economic choices we make now.

Read the complete ‘in-depth analysis’ on ‘Disruption by technology: Impacts on politics, economics and society‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Marketa Pape,

© Adobe Stock

The United Nations’ international days are an occasion to give prominence to issues of concern to the public and policy-makers. The theme chosen for World Maritime Day 2020 – Sustainable shipping for a sustainable planet – highlights the importance of the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the related work of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the UN agency for the safety, security and environmental performance of international shipping.

The broad scope of IMO efforts to make shipping more sustainable includes, for instance, measures introduced to cut the sulphur content of ships’ fuel oil, reduce marine litter, protect the polar regions and limit the spread of invasive marine species from ships’ ballast water. The 2020 edition – marked on 24 September – highlights two other areas of IMO action: reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GGEs) from shipping and making crew changes function during the Covid‑19 pandemic.

In response to the Paris Agreement’s call to limit global warming to well below 2°C, the IMO adopted a mandatory fuel data collection system in 2016, and an initial strategy on the reduction of GGEs from ships in 2018. The strategy’s aim is to cut shipping emissions by at least 50 % by 2050 compared to 2008 levels, before phasing them out entirely. To be reviewed in 2023, the strategy outlines candidate short-, medium- and long-term reduction measures. Progress on short-term measures is expected already this year.

The EU, having long urged the IMO to be more ambitious on climate action, already adopted a system for monitoring, reporting and verification on CO2 emissions from maritime transport in 2015. From 2018, it started collecting CO2 emission data from large ships calling at European ports. However, once the IMO data collection system began to apply in 2019, shipping companies have had to report similar data twice. EU legislators are now adapting the EU system to facilitate data reporting without weakening its usefulness in gathering transparent data per ship and voyage. The EU is also considering bringing maritime emissions under its Emissions Trading System, in line with the European Green Deal.

During the coronavirus pandemic, ships continued to transport essential medical supplies, food and other basic goods. However, due to government-imposed lockdowns and restrictions, crew rotations stopped, leaving hundreds of thousands of seafarers stuck on ships, often even without medical assistance. Instead of returning home, seafarers have been asked to continue working for months longer, ignoring the accumulated fatigue and increased risk of accidents. The IMO has repeatedly called on governments to designate seafarers as essential workers; it put protocols in place to enable safe crew changes, helped organise repatriations and provided support for seafarers’ mental health. The EU, for its part, has addressed a set of specific guidelines and economic relief measures to its shipping and ports sector.

Due to the current restrictions, this year’s World Maritime Day event will be celebrated online. This will not lessen the expectations for the IMO to make a genuine contribution to improving the environmental performance of international shipping.