You are here

European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

Subscribe to European Parliamentary Research Service Blog feed European Parliamentary Research Service Blog
European Parliamentary Research Service Blog
Updated: 2 hours 27 min ago

Education in isolation in the pandemic, following the path of Isaac Newton

Thu, 06/04/2020 - 08:30

Written by Denise Chircop,

© kaliantye / Adobe Stock

While schools have remained closed due to the coronavirus pandemic, students’ education cannot be suspended indefinitely without severe consequences. Alternative methods, mostly dependent on digital technology, have been adopted very rapidly. Organisations such as Unesco have been quick to monitor the situation, and the European Union too has followed developments in the Member States through its agencies and networks. Video-conferences between education ministers have been pivotal for them to discuss issues and learn from each other’s best practices.

What has started as an emergency has become an eye-opener, as existing educational gaps have become more visible. Socio-economic inequalities, greater difficulties of access for those with special educational needs, barriers in home–school communication and between teachers and educational authorities have been compounded by missing digital tools and skills.

The sudden leap has also given rise to outreach initiatives and a growing awareness of resources whose potential was still under-exploited. These included numerous online platforms and other resources that became freely available to salvage the situation. As teachers, students and parents experiment with new tools, policy-makers try to understand what can be more systematically adopted in the future to make education more flexible and inclusive, and what needs to be debunked.

Learning is not limited to schooling; vocational education and training, universities and adult education sectors have also struggled to maintain their activities. At the same time, they will be expected to contribute to the relaunch following the end of confinement. Given the economic downturn, guidance and career counselling will have a pivotal role in reskilling and upskilling the labour force. The European Union has a supportive role in this process and also needs to safeguard the wellbeing of participants in its programmes Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps. The European Parliament is keen to ensure the institutions do all they can. Where does Isaac Newton fit in all this?

Read the complete briefing on ‘Education in isolation in the pandemic, following the path of Isaac Newton‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Categories: European Union

New STOA study on blockchain for supply chains and international trade

Wed, 06/03/2020 - 18:00

Written by Philip Boucher,

© julia.m / Shutterstock.com

Blockchains combine several techniques – including encryption, consensus methods and distributed storage – to record transactions. They are particularly useful in situations where it is necessary to maintain ownership histories and cooperate with other actors. It has been suggested that their use could benefit supply chain management and international trade processes. In this context, STOA launched a study of potential use cases and their impacts.

The full report sets out the key features of blockchain technology and how it could be used to support various aspects of supply chains and international trade, before examining the potential impacts of eight specific use cases. It then sets out some key challenges and 20 policy options organised into six themes. These are also presented in the accompanying STOA Options Brief.

Blockchain technology offers secure, robust, authenticated storage that is resistant to modification. Its most distinctive feature is its decentralised structure. No single actor has full control of the system. Instead, control is distributed by consensus rules that apply across an ecosystem of actors. This allows participants to cooperate while retaining potentially conflicting or competing interests. This feature could be particularly valuable for supply chain management and international trade processes that require cooperation and trust between several actors arranged in complex relationships across differing regulatory frameworks.

The study examined the market readiness and potential impacts of eight promising use cases for blockchain technology in supply chains and international trade: decentralised marketplaces, letters of credit, cross-border payment systems, maritime insurance, supply chain management, e-certificates of origin, proof of authenticity for luxury products and ethical sourcing for the food industry. The potential impacts of the use cases were considered from trade, economic, transparency, security, data protection, social and environmental perspectives. Overall, they are expected to contribute to the facilitation of trade through a combination of digitalisation, information exchange and automation. This could result in cost reductions and increased transparency. Security is considered strong overall, although standards, certification and audit procedures would help to ensure quality and compliance. The use of blockchain technology might also facilitate small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to access trade and trade finance and help consumers to access product information, potentially enabling more ethical and environmentally responsible choices.

Regarding readiness for market, each use case has achieved a minimum level of credibility in the form of a technical proof of concept, a larger pilot study or, in some cases, early commercial solutions. There are no major technical barriers to the use of some types of blockchain solution for some elements of trade.

The level of maturity and impact varies across applications. The figure below presents a graphical representation of the relative impact and market readiness of blockchain applications for each use case.

Qualitative assessment of the potential impact and readiness of blockchain applications for trade in 2020 and 2025

© IDATE Digiworld (Adapted from the full report).

It should be noted that many of the benefits described here derive not from blockchain per se, but from the digitalisation of trade processes that are currently conducted in large part offline. There are several barriers to this digitalisation and blockchain presents only a partial solution to some of them, notably the provision of a secure infrastructure for digital exchanges that embeds trust and collaboration. They do not provide a complete solution for all aspects of trade and its digitalisation. One substantial barrier to digitalisation remains in the willingness of the ensemble of trade actors to change. Blockchain itself also introduces some barriers including data localisation and privacy issues, identification of the applicable law, allocation of liability, legal recognition of blockchain-based information, and interoperability and standardisation across various economic operators and regulatory frameworks.

Despite efforts to digitalise supply chains and trade processes, the transition to electronic document exchange and data processing remains incomplete. Blockchain technology may offer a partial solution to some of the barriers, and several actors at EU and international level as well as the private sector are exploring the opportunities. To take things further, policy-driven action may be needed, including adaptations to the legislative framework.

During the final stage of the study, 20 policy options were developed as potential responses to the challenges identified. These include measures to support customs facilitation, sustainable trade, SME involvement, leadership in standardisation, evidence-based policy and awareness raising.

Read the full report and accompanying STOA Options Brief to find out more. You can also watch the video of the presentation of interim findings to the STOA Panel.

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

Categories: European Union

Demography on the European agenda: Strategies for tackling demographic decline

Tue, 06/02/2020 - 18:00

Written by Vasileios Margaras,

© kokixx / Adobe Stock

The EU faces a number of demographic challenges such as ageing, a declining birth rate and depopulation in some of its regions. The EU represents an ever-shrinking proportion of the world population, at just 6.9 % today (down from 13.5 % in 1960), and is projected to fall further to just 4.1 % by the end of this century. This is explained by the low fertility rates as the numbers of children being born has fallen from an EU-28 average of around 2.5 children per woman in 1960, to a little under 1.6 today. This is far below the 2.1 births per woman considered necessary to maintain a stable population in the long term. Ageing is also another population trend in the EU. Due to advances in medicine and quality of life, the average life expectancy the EU has increased considerably and now stands at about 81 years on average.

Demography matters. The economy, labour market, healthcare, pensions, regional development, and election results – all are driven by demography. EU Member States have their own strategies and policies in order to counteract demographic decline. The EU also has an auxiliary role when it comes to tackling demographic challenges. Nevertheless, the EU has limited legal powers when it comes to dealing with issues that are related to demography.

The coronavirus epidemic also has an impact on demography. Covid-19 has caused many deaths of elderly people. Certain EU regions have been affected more than others from the spread of the coronavirus. Studies suggest that coronavirus has a considerable impact on EU population trends (such as number of deaths per country, reduction of life expectancy and family planning).

Both the European Parliament and the European Committee of the Regions are preparing their own reports and opinions on issues that are related to demography.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Demography on the European agenda: Strategies for tackling demographic decline‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Categories: European Union

Understanding the EU’s approach to cyber diplomacy and cyber defence

Fri, 05/29/2020 - 14:00

Written by Tania Latici,

© metamorworks / Adobe Stock

Despite its expertise in cyber public awareness campaigns, research and development, and educational programmes, the EU is still subject to constant cyber attacks. The EU’s response to a sophisticated cyber threat spectrum is comprehensive, but perhaps the most European aspect of its toolbox is cyber diplomacy. Cyber diplomacy aims to secure multilateral agreements on cyber norms, responsible state and non-state behaviour in cyberspace, and effective global digital governance. The goal is to create an open, free, stable and secure cyberspace anchored in international law through alliances between like-minded countries, organisations, the private sector, civil society and experts. Cyber diplomacy coexists with its sister strands of cyber defence, cyber deterrence and cybersecurity.

Offensive cyber actors are growing in diversity, sophistication and number. Disruptive technologies powered by machine-learning and artificial intelligence pose both risks and opportunities for cyber defences: while attacks are likely to increase in complexity and make attribution ever more problematic, responses and defences will equally become more robust. Burning issues demanding the international community’s attention include an emerging digital arms race and the need to regulate dual-use export control regimes and clarify the rules of engagement in cyber warfare.

Multilateral cyber initiatives are abundant, but they are developing simultaneously with a growing push for sovereignty in the digital realm. The race for cyber superiority, if left unchecked, could develop into a greater security paradox. The EU’s cyber diplomacy toolbox and its bi- and multilateral engagements are already contributing to a safer and more principled cyberspace. Its effectiveness however hinges on genuine European and global cooperation for the common cyber good. Ultimately, the EU’s ambition to become more capable, by becoming ‘strategically autonomous’ or ‘technologically sovereign’, also rests on credible cyber defence and diplomacy.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Understanding the EU’s approach to cyber diplomacy and cyber defence‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Categories: European Union

The coronavirus crisis: Options for economic recovery [What Think Tanks are thinking]

Thu, 05/28/2020 - 18:00

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© starlineart / Adobe Stock

As the coronavirus crisis keeps the world in its grip, analysts ponder what future measures could stimulate recovery from the deep recession expected in its aftermath, with a focus, in particular, on the European Commission’s plans and the growth-boosting fund recently proposed by France and Germany. Analysts also continue to contemplate what geopolitical order will emerge from the crisis, as well as the impact on individual regions such as Europe, Africa and Asia, or particular countries such as Saudi Arabia, Japan or Syria.

This note offers links to recent commentaries and reports from international think tanks on coronavirus and related issues. Earlier publications on the topic can be found in the previous edition in this series, published by EPRS on 26 May.

Who’s first wins? International crisis response to Covid-19
European Union Institute for Security Studies, May 2020

The European Union’s SURE plan to safeguard employment: A small step forward
Bruegel, May 2020

The Franco-German bond to the rescue
Centre for European Policy Studies, May 2020

How Germany’s Constitutional Court jump-started the Franco-German engine
Council on Foreign Relations, May 2020

The EU recovery fund is a historic step, almost
Centre for European Reform, May 2020

Europe’s political oppositions in the coronavirus crisis
German Marshall Fund, May 2020

How to repair multilateralism after Covid-19
Council on Foreign Relations, May 2020

When the Franco–German ‘couple’ starts making sense again
Istituto Affari Internazionali, May 2020

Pushing the EU to a Hamiltonian moment
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, May 2020

The European Central Bank in the Covid-19 crisis: Whatever it takes, within its mandate
Bruegel, May 2020

How Germany’s Constitutional Court jump-started the Franco-German engine
European Council on Foreign Relations, May 2020

The Coronavirus must push Europe to rescue multilateralism
Carnegie Europe, May 2020

How to repair multilateralism after Covid-19
European Council on Foreign Relations, May 2020

Does restricting travel during a pandemic work?
Chatham House, May 2020

Covid-19 aside, it’s coal-fired power that threatens us most
Friends of Europe, May 2020

Weaker together or weaker apart? Great power relations after the coronavirus
Egmont, May 2020

How will Covid-19 impact Brexit? The collision of two giant policy imperatives
Bruegel, May 2020

Three ways Covid-19 will cause economic divergence in Europe
Centre for European Reform, May 2020

Save markets to save the single market
Bruegel, May 2020

Covid-19 and the climate: Energy nexus
Egmont, May 2020

Democracy delayed: Covid-19’s effect on Latin America’s politics
Chatham House, May 2020

Coronavirus crisis: Exploring the human impact on nature
Chatham House, May 2020

Living with coronavirus
Chatham House, May 2020

Dans l’après Covid, comment financer une relance verte?
Confrontations Europe, May 2020

In many of the hardest-hit states, Covid-19 small business relief is lagging
Brookings Institution, May 2020

G20 in the spotlight: The fight against Covid-19
Istituto Affari Internazionali, May 2020

Treacherous Mirror: Misinterpreting Italian Euroscepticism
Istituto Affari Internazionali, May 2020

How societies can fight pandemics and climate change at the same time
Atlantic Council, May 2020

How the coronavirus impacts Japan’s prospects for constitutional revision
Atlantic Council, May 2020

Americans want global engagement on fighting Covid-19
Brookings Institution, May 2020

L’économie et la diplomatie: Les deux défis de la Chine dans le monde post-Covid-19
Institut français des relations internationales, May 2020

Democracy is the missing link in EU Coronavirus recovery plans
Carnegie Europe, May 2020

To reopen the economy safely, we need both liability protection and hazard pay
Brookings Institution, May 2020

In der Corona-Krise aus der WTO-Krise
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, May 2020

Après le covid-19 le transport aérien en europe: Le temps de la décision
Fondation pour l’innovation politique, May 2020

L’Inde et le Pakistan à l’épreuve du coronavirus
Fondation pour la recherche stratégique, May 2020

La convergence ‘médias et télécoms’ à l’épreuve du Covid-19
Fondation Robert Schuman, May 2020

How does the Covid-19 pandemic affect LGBTI+ community in Turkey?
Heinrich Böll Stiftung, May 2020

The Covid-19 pandemic and conflict dynamics in Syria
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, May 2020

How Covid-19 affected the nation’s schools: New data gives insights for planning
Rand Corporation, May 2020

L’Arabie Saoudite face au COVID-19: l’ambition contrariée
Institut français des relations internationales, May 2020

Conflict, health cooperation and Covid-19 in Myanmar
International Crisis Group, May 2020

Sudan’s terrible combination: An existing humanitarian crisis and Covid-19
Istituto per gli Studi di Politica Internazionale, May 2020

Read this briefing on ‘The coronavirus crisis: Options for economic recovery‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Read all EPRS publications on the coronavirus outbreak

Categories: European Union

Food trade and food security in the coronavirus pandemic

Wed, 05/27/2020 - 18:00

Written by Krisztina Binder,

© SasinParaksa / Adobe Stock

The coronavirus pandemic has not only created a global public health crisis, but it has had a significant effect on the global economy and international trade. Measures to deal with the consequences of the pandemic while also affecting food trade have impacted on the world’s food systems and have raised concerns for global food security. The EU is committed to keeping trade flowing and supply chains functioning, and supports international cooperation to promote food security.

International trade affected by pandemic-induced crisis

To curb the rapid spread of the virus, unprecedented containment measures have been adopted worldwide that have restricted movement within and across the borders and shut down businesses’ activities. Lockdown policies resulted in, for instance, significant reductions in production, disruptions in logistics and distribution, and a drop in purchasing power and trade finance. As a consequence, the World Trade Organization (WTO) predicts a decrease in global merchandise trade of between 13 % and 32 % in 2020.

Although the WTO broadly prohibits the use of export prohibitions and restrictions, it allows their temporary introduction if a critical shortage of food or other essential products in an exporting country needs to be prevented or mitigated. Where members prohibit or restrict export of foodstuffs, the WTO Agreement on Agriculture provides that they must give due consideration to the food security of importing countries. In addition, the ‘general exceptions’ of WTO rules allow a member to introduce prohibitions and restrictions in order to pursue certain legitimate policy objectives, such as the protection of human, animal or plant life or health, under the condition that the application of the measures does not entail arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries, and does not constitute a disguised restriction on international trade.

Figure 1 – Number of countries and separate customs territories introducing export prohibitions and restrictions, by category of product
(as of 22 April 2020)

The WTO Secretariat’s information note of 23 April 2020 estimated that 80 countries and separate customs territories (of which eight were not WTO members) had introduced export prohibitions or restrictions in the context of the coronavirus pandemic (See Figure 1). While most of the measures concerned medical supplies, 14 WTO members and three observers also imposed measures on food products. Although, in principle, all these measures should be notified, the WTO notes the low number of notifications. Thus, three notifications on foodstuffs export restrictions have been sent by Kyrgyzstan (wheat, rice, etc.), North Macedonia (wheat and wheat flour), and Thailand (eggs).

According to the food trade restrictions tracker of the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), as of 25 May 2020, 11 countries apply active binding food export restrictions, among them Kazakhstan (buckwheat, sugar, etc.), Russia (wheat, rye, barley, etc.) and Ukraine (buckwheat, buckwheat grain).

Effects of the pandemic on global food trade and food security

The pandemic has already had direct and indirect impacts on food systems. These have included workforce shortages hampering production and processing activities, reduced cargo possibilities, additional health and safety measures requirements for supply chain members, panic-buying followed by decreased demand, but also reduced purchasing power. However, until now, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the supply of foodstuffs has been satisfactory and disruptions have not been significant. Global cereal reserves, for instance, are adequate, and prospects for wheat and other key staple crops for 2020 are favourable. At the same time, the FAO anticipates further disruptions in supply chains, with particular difficulties in, for instance, fresh food supply chains. Factors such as seasonal labour shortage and blockages of transport routes may affect the availability of these products, and not least, significantly increase the level of food losses and waste. This applies, for instance to fruits and vegetables, as well as to fresh fish and aquaculture products. Workforce issues may also adversely affect production and processing in the meat sector.

In addition to food availability, access to food is also an important dimension of food security. Analysts recall the food price crisis of 2007-2008, when export restrictions imposed by certain major food-exporting countries triggered the use of similar measures by other exporting countries, which led to price increases. According to the May 2020 Market Monitor of the Agricultural Market Information System (AMIS), recent and mostly temporary restrictive measures have so far had only a limited adverse effect on international prices; however, the poor and the most vulnerable sections of the population would in particular be at risk of access difficulties arising from food price spikes and falling revenues. Experts also stress the need to keep food supply chains open and efficient, in order to preserve jobs that provide income and livelihoods, and to contain price increases and critical shortages. Although currently it is largely unknown to what extent the pandemic will affect agricultural markets, the FAO’s analyses generally expect a decrease, both on the supply and on the demand side, with the latter due to slowing economic activity and rising unemployment.

According to the 2020 Global Report on Food Crisis, the 135 million people in 55 countries and territories who were in acute food insecurity in 2019 are the most vulnerable to the consequences of the pandemic. In addition, countries that are highly dependent on food imports or on exports of first-degree substances, such as oil, are also among those vulnerable to lack of food security. The report adds that at the time of the publication, the extent of the pandemic’s effects on these countries is unknown. Developing countries, where the pandemic may endanger income and labour-intensive forms of production, are also at risk.

The EU’s initial Covid-19-related trade actions also affecting food trade

The EU’s initial actions were aimed at addressing the immediate public health crisis, with the objective of ensuring the cross-border flow of vital medical supplies, basic agricultural products and other goods and services. On 7 April 2020, the EU notified to the WTO eight Covid-19-relevant steps including various fields of actions affecting international trade operations, such as the guidelines for uninterrupted air cargo services ensuring the operation of European and global supply chains. Subsequently, the EU informed the WTO about new trade measures to address the economic impact of the pandemic on 24 April 2020. EU export authorisation measures did not apply to agricultural and food products, but to certain items of personal protective equipment. Although not directly pandemic-induced, on 27 April 2020 the EU set import duty on maize, sorghum and rye. The low price of US maize, due inter alia, to the fall in oil prices caused by the Covid-19 outbreak, has activated an existing automatic mechanism calculating import duties for these cereals to protect EU cereal producers from being at a disadvantage.

At the G20 ministerial meeting on 30 March 2020, Trade Commissioner Phil Hogan, given the adequate global food supply, considered the introduction of export restrictions and other distortive measures in the agri-food sector unjustified. In a speech of 16 April 2020, Agricultural Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski called for keeping domestic and international food supply chains functional to prevent a global food security crisis and to ensure food security for the most vulnerable. The joint statement of 16 April 2020 of the Croatian Presidency and the European Commission stated that, ‘in the long-run there will be a need to ensure the resilience and sustainability of global value and supply chains’. On 22 April 2020, the EU and 21 other WTO members, in a joint statement, committed to keeping agri-food supply chains open and connected, and to refraining from creating domestic food stocks. The parties to the statement pledged to introduce agriculture and food products-related emergency measures that are targeted, proportionate, transparent and temporary.

According to the European Commission, 2019 was an outstanding year for the EU in terms of agri-food trade. Not only did the value of exports reach €151.2 billion, an increase of 10 % compared to 2018, but the value of the trade surplus was also more than 50 % higher than in 2018, reaching €31.9 billion.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Food trade and food security in the coronavirus pandemic‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Categories: European Union

EU export authorisation scheme for personal protection equipment

Wed, 05/27/2020 - 14:00

Written by Issam Hallak,

© Sherry Young / Adobe Stock.

In the midst of the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic, the European Commission issued an implementing regulation requiring authorisations for exports of personal protection equipment (PPE), effective as of 15 March 2020 for a six-week period. A second implementing regulation extended the period for another 30 days. The latter reduced the range of products subject to authorisation to three categories, namely mouth-nose protection, protective spectacles and visors, and protective garments; gloves and face shields were dropped from the list.

The authorisations are granted by national competent authorities, and must be coordinated with the Commission’s new ‘clearing house for medical equipment’ and the rescEU stockpile of medical equipment in order to verify that the PPE being exported is not needed by other EU Member States in their fight against coronavirus. The export authorisation regulations are among the EU coordination and solidarity mechanisms implemented by the European Commission.

A mapping of exports and imports of PPE subject to authorisation shows that, even though the EU runs a large trade surplus for medical products in general, it had been running trade deficits on these specific products for the last decade. The scale of trade in these products is also very small since imports represented as little as 0.05 % of EU gross domestic product (GDP) in 2019. This all goes to show how what amounts to a tiny portion of international trade can have dramatic consequences.

Read this briefing on ‘EU export authorisation scheme for personal protection equipment‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Categories: European Union

Coronavirus: The world in limbo [What Think Tanks are thinking]

Wed, 05/27/2020 - 08:30

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© scaliger / Adobe Stock

Most countries recovering from the first – and hopefully last – wave of the coronavirus pandemic are now in limbo. Confinement measures are cautiously being relaxed while short-term assessments on the impact of the virus on the economy and society are being refined. Meanwhile, analysts are now also looking at the mid- to long- term implications of the disease and also assessing the situation in the developing world, as well as in Russia, where, notably, they see the crisis working against President Vladimir Putin.

This note offers links to recent commentaries and reports from international think tanks on coronavirus and related issues. Earlier publications on the topic can be found in the previous item in this series, published by EPRS on 15 May.

Rebooting Europe: A framework for a post Covid-19 economic recovery
Bruegel, May 2020

Covid-19 calls for European strategic autonomy: The EU needs to manage global dependencies without pulling up the drawbridges
Finnish Institute for International Affairs, May 2020

Coronavirus is pushing the EU in new and undesirable directions
Centre for European Reform, May 2020

Options for a European Recovery Fund
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, May 2020

From Wuhan to the world: How the pandemic will reshape geopolitics
Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique, May 2020

European identity and the test of Covid-19
Instituto Affari Internazionali, May 2020

Covid-19 will reshape our relationship with the state
Chatham House, May 2020

Coronavirus: Navigating a new storm with an old boat?
Fondation Européenne d’Etudes Progressistes, May 2020

Le Rapport Schuman sur l’Europe, l’état de l’Union 2020
Fondation Robert Schuman, May 2020

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

The health and economic impacts of Covid-19 interventions
Rand Corporation, May 2020

Peace, conflict, and Covid-19
Council on Foreign Relations, May 2020

Taiwan’s coronavirus lesson: Technology with transparency
German Marshall Fund, May 2020

Greener after
Institut Jacques Delors, May 2020

European defence should not be the casualty of the ‘great lockdown’
Institut des relations internationales et stratégiques, May 2020

The EU and the Covid-19 crisis: Emerging stronger or weaker on the international stage?
Friends of Europe, May 2020

Impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the Chinese economy
Polish Institute of International Affairs, May 2020

Developing policies for effective COVID-19 containment: The TRACE model
Brookings Institution, May 2020

Watch out, Putin’s star in Europe is declining
German Marshall Fund, May 2020

Le monde d’après: L’entreprise-providence?
Fondation Jean Jaurès, May 2020

Navigieren auf Sicht ist für einen grünen Wiederaufschwung nicht genug
Bruegel, May 2020

How the coronavirus revived Angela Merkel
Carnegie Europe, May 2020

Germany’s epic corona-tracing debate: A risky game with public trust
Heinrich Böll Stiftung, May 2020

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

Strategy for a pandemic: The UK and Covid-19
Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique, May 2020

Whatever it takes, for as long as is needed: Mapping a new European Recovery Programme
Wilfried Martens Centre, May 2020

Coronavirus: Not Putin’s kind of crisis
European Council on Foreign Relations, May 2020

What Covid tells us about the politics of the former Soviet Union
International Institute for Strategic Studies, May 2020

Covid-19 and the climate: Energy nexus
Egmont, May 2020

Covid-19 spotlighted European migrants’ vital role: The EU must tell their story
Friends of Europe, May 2020

Towards urban decoupling? China’s smart city ambitions at the time of Covid-19
European Union Institute for Security Studies, May 2020

In the Covid-19 era, healthcare should be universal and free
Chatham House, May 2020

A double pandemic: Domestic violence in the age of Covid-19
Council of Foreign Relations, May 2020

Should communities be concerned about digital technologies to fight Covid-19?
Rand Corporation, May 2020

Digital tracking: Why it’s no
Institut Thomas More, May 2020

Risking their health to pay the bills: 100 million Europeans cannot afford two months without income
Bruegel, May 2020

How Iran was hit by and could overcome the COVID-19 crisis
European Policy Centre, May 2020

No triumph for Putin on Victory Day
Centre for European Reform, May 2020

Power shifts and the risk of a ‘crisis within the crisis’: Covid, oil and the MENA Region
Instituto Affari Internazionali, May 2020

Covid-19 and the oil price crash: Twin crises impacting Saudi-Iran relations
Instituto Affari Internazionali, May 2020

As Covid-19 spreads in ICE detention, oversight is more critical than ever
Brookings Institution, May 2020

How the coronavirus will harm state and city budgets
Council on Foreign Relations, May 2020

The coronavirus challenge for Puerto Rico
Council on Foreign Relations, May 2020

Needed: A blueprint for a post-vaccine world
Rand Corporation, May 2020

Why Europe still matters
Carnegie Europe, May 2020

Le Covid-19 au Sahel: Pandémie lente mais impacts multiples
Institut français des relations internationales, May 2020

La Gestion très politisée du Covid-19 en Turquie
Institut français des relations internationales, May 2020

Strategy for a pandemic: The UK and Covid-19
International Institute for Strategic Studies, May 2020

Sanctioning pandemic-plagued Iran
International Institute for Strategic Studies, May 2020

The struggle for democracy in Asia: Regression, resilience, revival
Bertelsmann Stiftung, May 2020

Covid-19 and technology in the EU: Think bigger than apps
Wilfried Martens Centre, May 2020

Coronavirus: Nigeria’s ‘fiscal flu’
Chatham House, May 2020

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

Read all EPRS publications on the coronavirus outbreak

Categories: European Union

Citizens’ enquiries on the composition of the European Parliament, following Court of Justice ruling on case C-502/19

Tue, 05/26/2020 - 18:00

© European Union 2019 – Source : EP / Marc Dossmann

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 following the judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union in case C-502/19, Junqueras Vies, of 19 December 2019. Citizens first began to write to the President on this subject in December 2019. The President of the European Parliament, David Maria Sassoli, announced in plenary on 13 January 2020 that, following the judgement of the EU Court, the mandates of Mr Junqueras i Vies, Mr Puigdemont i Casamajó and Mr Comín i Oliveres began on 2 July 2019, on the basis of the official declaration of the results of the European elections by the competent Spanish authorities. However, taking into account the decision of the Junta Electoral Central of 3 January 2020, and pursuant to the decision of the Tribunal Supremo of 9 January 2020, the mandate of Mr Junqueras i Vies terminated with effect from 3 January 2020.

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, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and Polish).

Main points made in the reply in English

‘On 19 December 2019, the last sitting of Parliament’s plenary session of 2019, President Sassoli informed the Parliament about the content and consequences of the judgement of the Court of Justice in case C-502/19, Junqueras Vies, published on the same day. The statement of the President on the European Court of Justice ruling can be found here.

Taking into account the decision of the Junta Electoral Central of 3 January 2020 and the decision of the Tribunal Supremo of 9 January 2020 concerning the situation of Mr Junqueras i Vies, the President published a statement on 10 January 2020 on the composition of the European Parliament. This statement can be found here.

As outlined in the statement, the European Parliament is obliged to take note without delay of the final decisions of the competent authorities of the Member States. Therefore, the President announced in plenary on Monday 13 January 2020 the start of mandate of the three Members on 2 July 2019 of Mr Junqueras i Vies, Mr Puigdemont i Casamajó and Mr Comín i Oliveres, and the termination of the mandate of Mr Junqueras i Vies on 3 January 2020.

The President’s announcement of the termination of the mandate of Mr Junqueras iVies is currently under review by the General Court of the European Union. Parliament is not in a position to comment on ongoing Court proceedings.’

Main points made in the reply in Spanish

“El 19 de diciembre de 2019, en la última sesión del Pleno del Parlamento de 2019, el presidente Sassoli informó a la cámara sobre el contenido y las consecuencias de la sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia en el asunto C-502/19, Junqueras i Vies, publicada ese mismo día. La declaración del presidente sobre la sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión puede consultarse aquí.

Teniendo en cuenta la decisión de la Junta Electoral Central de 3 de enero de 2020 así como la decisión del Tribunal Supremo de 9 de enero de 2020 en relación con la situación del Sr. Junqueras i Vies, el presidente publicó el 10 de enero de 2020 una declaración sobre la composición del Parlamento Europeo. Esta declaración puede consultarse aquí.

Tal como se indica en la declaración, el Parlamento Europeo está obligado a tomar nota sin dilación de las decisiones que con carácter definitivo tomen las autoridades competentes de los Estados miembros. Por consiguiente, el Presidente anunció en el Pleno el lunes 13 de enero de 2020 el inicio del mandato de los tres diputados —Sres. Junqueras i Vies, Puigdemont i Casamajó y Comín i Oliveres— en fecha de 2 de julio de 2019, así como la expiración del mandato del Sr. Junqueras i Vies el 3 de enero de 2020.

El anuncio por parte del presidente de la expiración del mandato de este último está siendo actualmente examinado por el Tribunal General de la Unión Europea. El Parlamento no puede hacer comentarios sobre los procedimientos judiciales en curso.”

Main points made in the reply in Italian

“Il 19 dicembre 2019, durante l’ultima seduta plenaria del Parlamento del 2019, il Presidente Sassoli ha informato il Parlamento in merito al contenuto e alle conseguenze della sentenza della Corte di giustizia nella causa C-502/19 Junqueras Vies, pubblicata lo stesso giorno. La dichiarazione del Presidente sulla sentenza della Corte di giustizia dell’Unione europea può essere consultata tramite questo link.

Tenuto conto della decisione della Junta Electoral Central del 3 gennaio 2020 e della decisione del Tribunal Supremo del 9 gennaio 2020 in merito alla situazione del sig. Junqueras i Vies, il 10 gennaio 2020 il Presidente ha pubblicato una dichiarazione sulla composizione del Parlamento europeo. Tale dichiarazione può essere consultata tramite questo link.

Come indicato nella dichiarazione, il Parlamento europeo è tenuto a prendere immediatamente atto delle decisioni definitive delle autorità competenti degli Stati membri. Pertanto, lunedì 13 gennaio 2020 il Presidente ha annunciato in Aula l’inizio del mandato dei deputati Junqueras i Vies, Puigdemont i Casamajó e Comín i Oliveres il 2 luglio 2019 nonché la cessazione del mandato del sig. Junqueras i Vies il 3 gennaio 2020.

L’annuncio del Presidente in merito alla cessazione del mandato del sig. Junqueras i Vies è attualmente all’esame del Tribunale dell’Unione europea. Il Parlamento non può esprimere osservazioni sui procedimenti giudiziari in corso.”

Main points made in the reply in Portuguese

“Em 19 de dezembro de 2019, na última sessão plenária do período de sessões do Parlamento em 2019, o Presidente Sassoli informou o Parlamento sobre o conteúdo e as consequências do Acórdão do Tribunal de Justiça relativo ao processo C-502/19, Junqueras i Vies, publicado no mesmo dia. A declaração do Presidente sobre o acórdão do Tribunal de Justiça Europeu pode ser consultada aqui.

Tendo em conta a Decisão da Junta Eleitoral Central, de 3 de janeiro de 2020, e o Acórdão do Supremo Tribunal de Justiça, de 9 de janeiro de 2020, relativamente à situação de Junquera i Vies, o Presidente publicou uma declaração sobre a composição do Parlamento Europeu em 10 de janeiro de 2020. Essa declaração pode ser consultada aqui.

Conforme indicado na declaração, o Parlamento Europeu é obrigado a registar, sem demora, as decisões finais das autoridades competentes dos Estados-Membros. Por conseguinte, o Presidente anunciou em sessão plenária, na segunda-feira, 13 de janeiro de 2020, o início do mandato dos três deputados -Junqueras i Vies, Puigdemont i Casamajó e Comín i Oliveres – em 2 de julho de 2019, e o termo do mandato de Junqueras i Vries em 3 de janeiro de 2020.

O anúncio da cessação do mandato de Junqueras i Vies pelo Presidente está atualmente a ser examinado pelo Tribunal Geral da União Europeia. O Parlamento não está em posição de comentar processos judiciais em curso.”

Main points made in the reply in Polish

“W dniu 19 grudnia 2019 r., na ostatnim posiedzeniu plenarnym Parlamentu w 2019 r., przewodniczący D.M. Sassoli poinformował Parlament o treści i skutkach wyroku Europejskiego Trybunału Sprawiedliwości w sprawie C-502/19, Junqueras Vies, opublikowanego tego samego dnia. Oświadczenie przewodniczącego w sprawie orzeczenia Europejskiego Trybunału Sprawiedliwości znajduje się tutaj.

Uwzględniając decyzję hiszpańskiej centralnej komisji wyborczej (Junta Electoral Central) z 3 stycznia 2020 r. oraz decyzję hiszpańskiego sądu najwyższego (Tribunal Supremo) z 9 stycznia 2020 r. dotyczącą sytuacji O. Junquerasa i Viesa, w dniu 10 stycznia 2020 r. przewodniczący opublikował oświadczenie w sprawie składu Parlamentu Europejskiego. Oświadczenie to znajduje się pod tym linkiem.

Jak wskazano w oświadczeniu, Parlament Europejski jest zobowiązany do niezwłocznego przyjęcia do wiadomości ostatecznych decyzji właściwych organów państw członkowskich. W związku z tym w poniedziałek 13 stycznia 2020 r. przewodniczący ogłosił na posiedzeniu plenarnym rozpoczęcie mandatu przez trzech posłów w dniu 2 lipca 2019 r.: O. Junquerasa i Viesa, C. Puigdemonta i Casamajó oraz A. Comína i Oliveresa, a także zakończenie mandatu O. Junquerasa i Viesa w dniu 3 stycznia 2020 r.

Ogłoszenie przez przewodniczącego zakończenia mandatu O. Junquerasa i Viesa jest obecnie przedmiotem kontroli przeprowadzanej przez Sąd Unii Europejskiej. Parlament nie może wypowiadać się na temat toczących się postępowań sądowych.”

Categories: European Union

Citizens’ enquiries on the use of animals in scientific research

Tue, 05/26/2020 - 14:00

© Alona / Adobe Stock

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

The President of the European Parliament has recently received a large number of messages calling on the Parliament to introduce a Europe-wide moratorium on the use of animals in scientific research.

Citizens first began to write to the President on this subject in October 2019. In their messages, correspondents requested an EU-wide ban on all tests on animals for household products and their ingredients. Regarding other purposes, they called for a shift towards humane methods not involving animals.

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, French, German and Dutch).

Main points made in the reply in English

The EU rules on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes are laid down in Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010. The directive is based on the principle of replacement, reduction and refinement of the use of animals in procedures (also known as the ‘Three Rs’ principle).

On 3 May 2018, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on a global ban to end animal testing for cosmetics, in which Members reiterated ‘that animal testing can no longer be justified for cosmetics and asks EU and national public authorities to uphold the public’s opposition to cosmetics testing and support the advancement of innovative, humane testing methods;’

Further to the ban on animal testing for cosmetic purposes, Members of the European Parliament have tabled questions to the Commission – among others – on animal testing and clarifications on REACH and the Cosmetics Regulation, to which the Commission reply stated that ‘The promotion of alternative methods to animal testing is one of the main objectives of the REACH Regulation’.

On 3 March 2015, a European Citizens’ Initiative ‘Stop Vivisection’ was submitted to the European Commission, the goal of which was ‘to abrogate Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes and put forward a new proposal aimed at phasing out the practice of animal experimentation, making compulsory the use – in biomedical and toxicological research – of data directly relevant for the human species’.

The initiative was discussed during a public hearing hosted by the European Parliament on 11 May 2015, in order to provide a platform for debate for Members, the general public, the European Citizens’ Initiative supporters and experts in the field.

In its communication setting out its actions in response to the initiative, the Commission welcomed the mobilisation of citizens in support of animal welfare and stated that the EU shares the initiative’s conviction that animal testing should be phased out, which is also the main aim of EU legislation.

Numerous petitions have been submitted to the European Parliament on the issue of animal testing and vivisection.

Further information on animal testing is available in the summary of EU legislation on the protection of laboratory animals and the Commission’s webpage on ‘animals used for scientific purposes‘, which also contains details of EU action to identify alternative approaches.

Further information: Main points made in the reply in French

La question de l’expérimentation animale relative à la protection des animaux utilisés à des fins scientifiques est réglementée au niveau de l’Union par la directive 2010/63/UE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 22 septembre 2010 . La directive s’appuie sur l’application des principes dits de remplacement, de réduction et de raffinement (ou «règle des trois R») de l’utilisation d’animaux dans le cadre de ces procédures.

Le 3 mai 2018, le Parlement européen a adopté une résolution sur l’interdiction totale de l’expérimentation animale pour les cosmétiques, dans laquelle il «réaffirme que l’expérimentation animale ne peut plus être justifiée pour les cosmétiques et demande à l’Union et aux pouvoirs publics nationaux de soutenir l’opposition des citoyens à l’expérimentation animale pour les cosmétiques et le développement de méthodes d’expérimentation novatrices et humaines».

Dans le droit fil de l’interdiction de l’expérimentation animale dans le domaine des produits cosmétiques, plusieurs députés ont adressé des questions à la Commission concernant, entre autres, l’expérimentation animale et des éclaircissements sur REACH et le règlement sur les produits cosmétiques, ce à quoi la Commission a répondu en déclarant que «la promotion de méthodes alternatives à l’expérimentation animale est l’un des principaux objectifs du règlement REACH».

Le 3 mars 2015, une initiative citoyenne européenne intitulée Stop Vivisection a été présentée à la Commission, en vue de demander à cette dernière «d’abroger la directive 2010/63/UE relative à la protection des animaux utilisés à des fins scientifiques et de présenter à la place une nouvelle proposition de directive visant à mettre fin à l’expérimentation animale et de rendre obligatoire, pour la recherche biomédicale et toxicologique, l’utilisation de données pertinentes pour l’espèce humaine».

L’initiative a été examinée lors d’une audition publique, organisée par le Parlement européen le 11 mai 2015, pour permettre aux députés, au grand public, aux signataires de l’initiative citoyenne européenne et aux experts du domaine d’échanger sur ces questions.

Dans sa communication exposant ce qu’elle compte faire pour répondre à l’initiative, la Commission salue la mobilisation des citoyens en faveur du bien-être des animaux et déclare que l’Union européenne partage la conviction qui est celle de l’initiative citoyenne, à savoir que les essais sur les animaux devraient être progressivement supprimés, ce qui est aussi la finalité ultime de la législation européenne dans ce domaine.

Un grand nombre de pétitions ont été présentées au Parlement européen sur la question de l’expérimentation animale et de la vivisection.

Davantage d’informations sont disponibles dans la synthèse publiée sur EUR-Lex concernant la protection des animaux de laboratoire ainsi que sur la page web que la Commission consacre aux animaux utilisés à des fins scientifiques, qui précise également les mesures prises par l’Union pour recenser les méthodes de substitution à l’expérimentation animale.

Pour plus d’informations: Main points made in the reply in German

Die einschlägigen EU-Vorschriften zum Schutz der für wissenschaftliche Zwecke verwendeten Tiere sind in der Richtlinie 2010/63/EU des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 22. September 2010 festgelegt. Die Richtlinie basiert auf dem Prinzip, dass der Einsatz von Tieren bei solchen Verfahren ersetzt, eingeschränkt und verbessert werden soll (das sogenannte „3R-Prinzip“: replacement, reduction, refinement).

Am 3. Mai 2018 hat das Europäische Parlament eine Entschließung zu einem weltweiten Verbot von Tierversuchen für kosmetische Mittel angenommen, in der die Mitglieder bekräftigt haben, „dass Tierversuche für kosmetische Mittel nicht länger gerechtfertigt sind“, und „die EU und die einzelstaatlichen Behörden [aufgefordert haben], der ablehnenden Haltung der Öffentlichkeit gegenüber Tierversuchen für kosmetische Mittel Rechnung zu tragen und die Weiterentwicklung innovativer, humaner Versuchsmethoden zu fördern“.

Als Ergänzung zu dem Verbot von Tierversuchen für kosmetische Zwecke haben die Mitglieder unter anderem die Kommission zu Tierversuchen und zu Erläuterungen zur REACH- und zur Kosmetikverordnung konsultiert, worauf die Kommission erwidert hat, die Förderung alternativer Methoden zu Tierversuchen sei eines der wichtigsten Ziele der REACH-Verordnung.

Am 3. März 2015 wurde bei der Kommission eine Europäische Bürgerinitiative namens „Stop Vivisection“ eingereicht, die darauf abzielt, „die Richtlinie 2010/63/EU zum Schutz der für wissenschaftliche Zwecke verwendeten Tiere außer Kraft zu setzen und einen neuen Vorschlag zu unterbreiten, der auf der Abschaffung der Tierversuche beruht und stattdessen – in der biomedizinischen und toxikologischen Forschung – verbindlich den Einsatz von Daten vorschreibt, die direkte Relevanz für den Menschen haben.“

Das Europäische Parlament hat am 11. Mai 2015 eine öffentliche Anhörung zu der Initiative veranstaltet, um Mitgliedern, der Öffentlichkeit, Unterstützern der Europäischen Bürgerinitiative und Sachverständigen in diesem Bereich eine Diskussionsplattform zu bieten.

In ihrer Mitteilung mit den aufgrund der Initiative ergriffenen Maßnahmen begrüßte die Kommission die Mobilisierung der Bürger für den Tierschutz und führte an, dass die EU die Überzeugung der Bürgerinitiative teile, dass Tierversuche abgeschafft werden sollten, und dass das EU-Recht letztlich darauf hinauslaufe.

Beim Europäischen Parlament wurden zahlreiche Petitionen zum Thema Tierversuche und Vivisektion eingereicht.

Weitere Informationen über Tierversuche finden Sie in der Zusammenfassung der EU-Rechtsvorschriften zum Schutz von Versuchstieren und auf der Website der Kommission zu Tieren, die für wissenschaftliche Zwecke verwendet werden, die außerdem Details der Maßnahmen der EU zur Entwicklung alternativer Forschungsmethoden umfasst.

Weitere Informationen: Main points made in the reply in Dutch

De EU-regels betreffende de bescherming van dieren die voor wetenschappelijke doeleinden worden gebruikt zijn vastgelegd in Richtlijn 2010/63/EU van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 22 september 2010. Deze richtlijn is gebaseerd op de beginselen van vervanging, vermindering en verfijning (de drie v’s).

Het Europees Parlement heeft op 3 mei 2018 een resolutie aangenomen over een mondiaal verbod op dierproeven voor cosmetica, waarin de EP-leden aangeven dat zij van mening zijn dat “het verrichten van dierproeven voor cosmetica niet meer valt te rechtvaardigen” en waarin zij de Europese en nationale autoriteiten verzoeken “om het verzet van het grote publiek tegen dierproeven voor cosmetica en de ontwikkeling van innovatieve, humane testmethoden te steunen”.

Naar aanleiding van het verbod op dierproeven voor cosmetische doeleinden hebben EP-leden schriftelijke vragen ingediend bij de Commissie over o.a. dierproeven en verduidelijking van de Reach-verordening en de cosmeticaverordening. In haar antwoord op deze vragen verklaarde de Commissie dat de bevordering van alternatieve methoden voor dierproeven een van de belangrijkste doelstellingen van de Reach-verordening is.

Op 3 maart 2015 werd het Europees burgerinitiatief “Stop Vivisectie” ingediend bij de Europese Commissie. De indieners van dit burgerinitiatief drongen bij de Commissie aan op intrekking van Richtlijn 2010/63/EU betreffende de bescherming van dieren die voor wetenschappelijke doeleinden worden gebruikt en indiening van een nieuw voorstel met daarin een geleidelijk verbod op experimenten met dieren en een verplichting om – in het kader van biomedisch en toxicologisch onderzoek – gebruik te maken van gegevens die rechtstreeks van belang zijn voor de mens.

Over dit initiatief werd op 11 mei 2015 een openbare hoorzitting gehouden die georganiseerd werd door het Europees Parlement en die bedoeld was om EP-leden, burgers, de ondertekenaars van het burgerinitiatief en deskundigen op dit gebied een platform voor debat te bieden.

In de mededeling van de Commissie waarin de Commissie aangeeft welke maatregelen zij als reactie op dit initiatief wil gaan nemen, geeft de Commissie aan verheugd te zijn dat zoveel burgers zich inzetten voor het welzijn van dieren en dat de EU het met de indieners eens is dat er een verbod moet komen op dierproeven, en dat dat ook het belangrijkste doel is van de EU-wetgeving.

Over de onderwerpen dierproeven en vivisectie werden bij het Europees Parlement ook talrijke verzoekschriften ingediend.

Meer informatie over dierproeven kunt u vinden in de samenvatting van de EU-wetgeving over de bescherming van proefdieren en de website van de Commissie “animals used for scientific purposes”, waar ook meer informatie te vinden is over wat de EU doet om alternatieve methodes te vinden.

Meer informatie:

 

Categories: European Union

How digital technology is easing the burden of confinement

Mon, 05/25/2020 - 18:00

Written by Mar Negreiro,

© Stanisic Vladimir / Adobe Stock

The coronavirus pandemic is bringing an unforeseen acceleration in the digital transformation of societies around the world. This is the first pandemic in history in which digital technologies are being used on a massive scale to keep people connected while in isolation, allowing them to telework, follow online courses, shop online or consult health professionals from home. As a result, internet traffic has increased substantially since confinement began. According to EU Member States’ national regulators, operators have so far been able to manage this surge, while also introducing many exceptional measures, such as temporarily removing broadband data caps and making extra data and free online content available.

The current crisis has highlighted the importance that upgraded telecoms networks and 5G will have for societies and economies. Furthermore, now that confinement has started to ease, it is increasingly clear that digital technology will continue to play a very important longer-term role in controlling the spread of the coronavirus. The scope of contact-tracing apps is likely to expand, and teleworking, telehealth and e-learning are likely to become more prevalent than before.

However, the most popular digital apps, whether for e-commerce, social media, videoconferencing or contact tracing are not of EU origin, posing concerns for the EU’s digital dependency, competitive advantage and data privacy. In fact, the coronavirus crisis has further consolidated the existing dominance of ‘Big Tech’.

The pandemic has further exacerbated existing issues; for instance, the digital divide has broadened further and there has been a global rise in cybersecurity incidents. The EU is poised to tackle these issues, while at the same time embracing the digital transformation in our lifestyles and allowing the internet to play a critical role in defeating the virus.

Read the complete briefing on ‘How digital technology is easing the burden of confinement‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Categories: European Union

EU budgetary and financial response to the coronavirus crisis

Wed, 05/20/2020 - 18:00

Written by Clare Ferguson, Marianna Pari, Stefano Spinaci,

Within the limits of its powers, the EU has acted quickly to tackle the coronavirus pandemic and its consequences. Showing considerable flexibility, EU institutions have organised a package of measures (some already decided, others proposed or requested), to counter the crisis, drawing both on the EU budget and a wider economic package. Parliament is calling on the European Commission to propose a €2 trillion recovery package, distributed mostly through grants (over which Parliament will maintain scrutiny) rather than loans, and warns against the presentation of misleading figures. The recovery package should provide real funding to help those hardest-hit, and focus on climate mitigation, digitalisation and a new health programme. The Commission has committed to propose a comprehensive recovery plan, along with revised 2021-2027 MFF proposals, on 27 May 2020. In the meantime, France and Germany have suggested a €500 billion ‘recovery fund’.

© European Union, 2020 –European Parliament / EPRS

Read the complete briefing on ‘EU budgetary and financial response to the coronavirus crisis‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Categories: European Union

Citizens’ enquiries on the situation of the Kurdish population in north east Syria – Rojava

Wed, 05/20/2020 - 08:30

© Peter Hermes Furian / 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 on the situation of the Kurdish population in north east Syria, following a Turkish military operation in this region in October 2019. Citizens first began to write to the President on this subject in October 2019, expressing their concerns regarding the situation and asking for the European Union to intervene with concrete action. On the same day that the Turkish military operation began – 9 October 2019 – the President strongly urged Turkey to halt all military action immediately and to find solutions in peace and stability, through dialogue.

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

Main points made in the reply in English

The European Parliament and other European Union institutions are highly concerned about the situation.

We wish to inform you that the President of the European Parliament, Mr David Maria Sassoli, has stated, on 9 October 2019:

‘I strongly urge Turkey to stop all military action immediately. There is a population that has already suffered badly. We must not allow anything that can cause further suffering. This must stop. This intervention will never be a solution to the problem. We in the international community, the European Union, its institutions, ask that this military intervention stops, and we discuss the possibility of a buffer zone, but it must be done in peace and stability and through dialogue.’

The Plenary of the European Parliament held a debate on 9 October 2019 on the situation in northern Syria during which the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Ms Federica Mogherini, made a statement.

The Foreign Affairs Council of the European Union, which met in Luxembourg on 14 October 2019, adopted conclusions on north east Syria, including that:

‘The Council recalls the 9 October 2019 Declaration of the High Representative on behalf of the European Union and urges Turkey again to cease its unilateral military action in North East Syria and to withdraw its forces. The EU condemns Turkey’s military action which seriously undermines the stability and the security of the whole region, resulting in more civilians suffering and further displacement and severely hindering access to humanitarian assistance.’ and ‘The EU recalls that it will not provide stabilisation or development assistance in areas where the rights of local populations are ignored or violated.’

President Sassoli, in his speech, on 17 October 2019, to the European Council has stated:

‘For days, people throughout Europe have been following with dismay and anger events in our neighbourhood. The Kurdish population of north-eastern Syria, which fought bravely against the terrorists of the so-called Islamic State, is now under attack by a NATO country.

It is no wonder that our citizens feel a strong sense of gratitude towards the Kurds, because the battle against ISIS has been fundamental to our security.

Against this background, the European Parliament reiterates its call for the accession negotiations with Turkey to be suspended.

We consider it unacceptable and firmly reject any attempt by the Turkish authorities to establish a link between its military action in north-eastern Syria and the fate of Syrian refugees on Turkish territory.

It is worth reminding our citizens that the European Union is not funding the Turkish authorities but contributing directly to assisting and improving refugee living conditions through the work of UN agencies and humanitarian organisations. Human beings in need must never be used as a bargaining chip to justify violations of international law.’

For further information, you may wish to consult the website of the European Parliament and the website of the Delegation of the European Union to Syria. 

Main points made in the reply in Italian

Il Parlamento europeo e le altre istituzioni dell’Unione europea sono molto preoccupati riguardo alla situazione.

La informiamo che il Presidente Sassoli ha dichiarato il 9 ottobre 2019 quanto segue:

“Chiedo, con forza, alla Turchia di interrompere immediatamente ogni azione militare. C’è una popolazione che ha già sofferto duramente. Non dobbiamo metterla in condizioni di avere altre sofferenze. Che si fermi questo intervento, che non sarà mai la soluzione ai problemi che abbiamo! La comunità internazionale, l’Unione europea, le sue istituzioni chiedono che questo intervento si fermi e si discuta la possibilità anche di un cuscinetto di sicurezza ma certamente va fatto nella pace, nella stabilità e nel dialogo!”.

La Plenaria del Parlamento europeo ha tenuto una discussione il 9 ottobre 2019 sulla situazione nella Siria settentrionale durante la quale la Vicepresidente della Commissione/Alto rappresentante dell’Unione per gli affari esteri e la politica di sicurezza, Sig.ra Federica Mogherini, ha rilasciato una dichiarazione.

Il Consiglio per gli Affari esteri dell’Unione europea si è riunito a Lussemburgo il 14 ottobre 2019 e ha adottato conclusioni sul nord-est della Siria dichiarando:

“Il Consiglio rammenta la dichiarazione dell’Alto rappresentante a nome dell’Unione europea, del 9 ottobre 2019, ed esorta nuovamente la Turchia a cessare la sua azione militare unilaterale nel nord-est della Siria e a ritirare le sue forze. L’UE condanna l’azione militare della Turchia che compromette seriamente la stabilità e la sicurezza dell’intera regione, aumentando le sofferenze dei civili, provocando ulteriori sfollamenti e ostacolando fortemente l’accesso all’assistenza umanitaria” e “L’UE ricorda che non fornirà assistenza alla stabilizzazione o allo sviluppo in settori in cui i diritti delle popolazioni locali sono ignorati o violati”.

Il Presidente Sassoli, nel suo discorso del 17 ottobre 2019, ha dichiarato quanto segue:

“Sono ormai diversi giorni che le nostre opinioni pubbliche guardano con angoscia e rabbia a quello che succede non lontano dai nostri confini. La popolazione curda nel Nord-est della Siria ha combattuto con coraggio i terroristi dello Stato islamico e ora è oggetto di un’aggressione da parte di un Paese membro della NATO.

Non è un mistero che i nostri cittadini nutrano un forte senso di riconoscenza per quelle comunità. La battaglia contro l’ISIS, d’altronde, è stata fondamentale per la nostra sicurezza.

In tali circostanze il Parlamento europeo, come affermato già in passato, reitera la richiesta di sospendere i negoziati di adesione con la Turchia.

Riteniamo inaccettabile e respingiamo con forza ogni tentativo da parte delle Autorità turche di effettuare un legame fra la sua azione militare nel Nord-est della Siria e la sorte dei rifugiati siriani in territorio turco.

È bene ripetere ai nostri cittadini che l’Unione europea non finanzia le autorità turche ma contribuisce direttamente all’assistenza e al miglioramento delle condizioni di vita dei rifugiati tramite le attività delle agenzie delle Nazioni Unite e delle organizzazioni umanitarie. Gli esseri umani in difficoltà non possono mai essere utilizzati come merce di scambio per giustificare inaccettabili violazioni del diritto internazionale.”

Per ulteriori informazioni, può consultare il sito web del Parlamento europeo e il sito web della Delegazione dell’Unione europea in Siria.

Categories: European Union

Citizens’ enquiries on self-employed workers on e-commerce websites during the coronavirus pandemic

Tue, 05/19/2020 - 18:00

© 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 on the situation of micro-enterprises and the self-employed, in particular on e-commerce websites, in the context of the coronavirus pandemic. Citizens first began to write to the President on this subject in April 2020, calling on the Parliament to encourage the European Commission and EU governments to ensure that micro-enterprises and the self-employed (for example those working on the Etsy e-commerce platform), are an integral part of any economic recovery package.

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

Main points made in the reply in English

For several weeks, the President has been stressing the importance of addressing the negative impact the coronavirus is having on businesses.

We would like to inform you that, on 19 March 2020, the President stated the following:

‘Europe is moving. Faced with this dramatic situation, with a duty to defend lives, livelihoods, and stability for all, the European Union is acting. We are talking about an intervention that, overall, is close to two trillion euros. It provides useful resources to support our economy and our model of social protection. It will protect jobs, businesses, and ensure families are not left alone in the face of these challenging times’.

The President also stressed that we need to begin immediately preparing for the reconstruction  of our economies and our societies and to explore further synergies to provide emergency assistance to the sectors and companies affected by the crisis.

We would also like to inform you that the European Commission is increasing its response capacity by proposing to establish an instrument, called SURE, which will pay out €100 billion in loans to help workers keep their income and help businesses stay afloat. The proposal applies also to self-employed workers.

Lastly, we would like to inform you that you can follow the President’s activities on his website, where, amongst other things, you can take a look at his speeches and at the press releases on his statements.

Main points made in the reply in Italian

Da varie settimane il Presidente sottolinea l’importanza di far fronte alle conseguenze negative del coronavirus sulle attività economiche.

La informiamo che il Presidente ha dichiarato, il 19 marzo 2020, quanto segue:

“L’Europa si muove. Di fronte alla crisi drammatica che stiamo vivendo, di fronte al dovere di difendere la vita, il lavoro, la stabilità di tutti, l’Unione Europea sta reagendo… Parliamo di un intervento che, globalmente, sfiora i 2000 miliardi di euro… Saranno risorse utili a proteggere la nostra economia e il nostro modello di protezione sociale, aiutando il lavoro, le imprese, le famiglie a non essere lasciati soli ad affrontare questa stagione così difficile”.

Il Presidente ha inoltre sottolineato che è necessario iniziare subito a preparare la ricostruzione delle nostre economie e delle nostre società  ed esplorare ulteriori sinergie per fornire assistenza d’emergenza ai settori e alle imprese colpiti dalla crisi.

Le segnaliamo altresì che la Commissione europea sta accrescendo la sua capacità di risposta proponendo di istituire uno strumento, denominato SURE, che erogherà 100 miliardi di euro sotto forma di prestiti per aiutare i lavoratori a mantenere il proprio reddito e aiutare le imprese a restare a galla. La proposta si applica anche ai lavoratori autonomi.

La informiamo infine che è possibile seguire le attività del Presidente sul suo sito web, in cui potrà consultare, tra l’altro, i suoi discorsi e i comunicati stampa sui suoi interventi.

Categories: European Union

Plenary round-up – Brussels, May 2020

Mon, 05/18/2020 - 17:00

Written by Katarzyna Sochacka and Clare Ferguson,

© European Union 2020 – Source : EP / Daina LE LARDIC

The May 2020 plenary session was the third conducted with a majority of Members participating remotely, although more were present in Brussels than at the April session, and using the alternative voting procedure put in place in March by Parliament’s Bureau. The session focused on a number of urgent legislative proposals as well as votes on discharge for EU institutions and bodies concerning the 2018 budget. On the response to the Covid‑19 pandemic, Parliament called upon the European Commission to set up a recovery plan as part of the 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework (MFF). Members heard Council and Commission statements on the conclusions of the video-conference meeting of the European Council on 23 April 2020 and the MFF, own resources and recovery plan. They also debated statements relating to: emergency legislation in Hungary and its impact on the rule of law and fundamental rights; on the use of contact-tracing apps; and on vaccines and therapeutics. Members also held a debate on the 70th anniversary of the Schuman Declaration.

Coronavirus transport support package

After voting to invoke Rule 163 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure on applying the urgent procedure, Members adopted, with some amendments and by very large majorities, first-reading positions on four immediate measures to support the transport sector. The measures cover all transport modes (aviation, rail, maritime, inland navigation and road), seeking to ease some of the practical issues facing transport operators due to the coronavirus crisis, especially on costs and the regulatory burden. Member States’ ambassadors to the EU (Coreper) have also agreed to use written procedure to adopt these measures swiftly.

2021-2027 multiannual financial framework

Members addressed the prospects for future financing for the EU and its Covid‑19 recovery plan. Parliament adopted, by 505 votes (an absolute majority is required), a Committee on Budgets legislative initiative report requesting the European Commission make a legislative proposal to set up a contingency plan for the EU MFF, where lengthy negotiations in the European Council and Council have delayed agreement and the coronavirus outbreak has exacerbated both the delay and its consequences. The Treaties provide for extension of the annual level of resources available in the final year of the current MFF, until agreement is reached. However, there is a risk to the smooth functioning of the EU budget, since many of the EU’s current programmes will expire at the end of 2020, unless the new budget, or a contingency plan, are agreed soon.

Parliament also adopted a resolution on the next MFF, own resources and the recovery plan, in which it emphasised the need for the recovery plan to be built on the MFF, and for Parliament to be fully involved in decision-making on the recovery plan in order to ensure democratic accountability. The Commission announced that it expects to make a proposal on the Covid-19 post-pandemic recovery plan as well as its revised 2021-2027 MFF proposals on 27 May 2020. Parliament is expected to organise a plenary session that day in order for the Commission to prevent its new proposals directly to Members and to allow Parliament to give its immediate reactions.

EU bodies – Budgetary discharge 2018

To ensure correct management of EU funds, the European Commission and executive agencies, as well as the other EU institutions, the decentralised agencies and joint undertakings are required to present their ‘accounts’ for scrutiny each year. In this exercise covering the 2018 financial year, Members voted on 56 reports from Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control (CONT), which scrutinise each EU entity’s use of EU funding and recommend whether or not to grant approval (discharge). Parliament granted discharge for the European Commission, and six agencies, as well as for the Commission’s disbursement of European Development Funds. Parliament granted discharge for 32 EU decentralised agencies and 8 joint undertakings, and for the EU institutions other than the Commission, except, once again (as has been the case since 2009), the European Council and the Council. Parliament agreed to postpone a decision in the light of continued lack of cooperation with these two institutions. In addition, Parliament decided to postpone discharge in respect of the Economic and Social Committee, until the Committee provides evidence that it has taken measures regarding cases of alleged harassment.

Macro-financial assistance to enlargement and neighbourhood partners

Members approved a Commission proposal, tabled without a report by Parliament’s Committee on International Trade, seeking to provide enlargement and neighbourhood partners with macro-financial assistance (MFA) to mitigate the effects of Covid‑19. The MFA package will provide €3 billion to help enlargement candidate and southern neighbourhood countries facing a recession.

Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the EU and Mauritania

Members followed a PECH committee recommendation that Parliament agree to a one-year extension of the Protocol on the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the EU and Mauritania, currently under renegotiation. The agreement rolls over an existing extension to the 2015 agreement whereby the EU gains access rights to Mauritania’s mixed fisheries in return for €61 625 in payment and support for the country’s fisheries sector.

Opening of trilogue negotiations

Two committee decisions to enter into interinstitutional (trilogue) negotiations were confirmed. In the case of the AGRI committee’s report on the proposal on transitional funding provisions for the year 2021, Parliament voted in favour of the decision. The PECH committee’s report on Eastern Baltic cod fishing was confirmed with no vote taking place.

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

Categories: European Union

Which ‘new normal’ after coronavirus? [What Think Tanks are thinking]

Fri, 05/15/2020 - 18:00

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© jirsak / Adobe Stock

Many countries are now beginning to relax their strict confinement measures as the infection, hospitalisation and death rates from the coronavirus all fall. However, the impact of such moves is being monitored very closely, in order to try to forestall any second wave of infection. Meanwhile, debate intensifies about whether people’s previous life-styles and working practices, especially in richer industrialised countries, will be radically changed and/or remain sustainable in the emerging ‘new normal’. In parallel, the possibility of finding a vaccine, and using other modern technology applications, to overcome the virus is intensively discussed. Analysts are also looking at the disease’s specific impact in the poorest regions of the world, notably in sub-Saharan Africa.

This note offers links to recent commentaries and reports from international think tanks on coronavirus and related issues. Earlier publications on the topic can be found in the previous item in this series, published by EPRS on 8 May.

What kind of post-corona world do Europeans want?
European Council on Foreign Relations, May 2020

The great lockdown: Was it worth it?
Centre for European Policy Studies, May 2020

The end of ‘business as usual’? Covid-19 and the European Green Deal
Egmont, May 2020

The coronavirus crisis highlights Germany’s ‘reluctant leader’ problem
German Marshall Fund, May 2020

In der Corona-Krise aus der WTO-Krise
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, May 2020

European identity and the test of Covid-19
Instituto Affari Internazionali, May 2020

Eurasian Union fails a critical test: Displaying irrelevance in the time of the corona crisis
Finnish Institute of International Affairs, May 2020

Rebondir face au Covid-19 : L’enjeu du temps de travail
Institut Montainge, May 2020

Coronavirus: How are countries responding to the economic crisis?
Council on Foreign Relations, May 2020

Coronavirus vaccine: Available for all, or when it’s your turn?
Chatham House, May 2020

The health and economic impacts of Covid-19 interventions
Rand Corporation, May 2020

Risking their health to pay the bills: 100 million Europeans cannot afford two months without income
Bruegel, May 2020

Covid-19 and defence: The need for EU funding – Why EU budget negotiators should not only focus on financial firepower
Cligendael, May 2020

Coronavirus: Could a people’s bailout help?
Chatham House, May 2020

Social bonds in response to the Covid-19 crisis: When financial markets save lives
Centre for European Policy Studies, May 2020

Covid-19 and technology in the EU: Think bigger than apps
Martens Centre, May 2020

How can innovation help our societies in times of Covid-19 adversity?
Friends of Europe, May 2020

China should export more medical gear to battle Covid-19
Peterson Institute for International Economics, May 2020

The impact of Covid-19 restrictions on individual mobility
Bruegel, May 2020

The Covid-19 pandemic and conflict dynamics in Syria
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, May 2020

Covid-19 in the Horn of Africa
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, May 2020

Covid-19: Les réponses européennes
Fondation Robert Schuman, May 2020

Covid-19 exposes Italy’s vulnerability to US-China antagonism
Instituto Affari Internazionali, May 2020

The Covid-19 pandemic and deadly conflict
International Crisis Group, May 2020

Europe’s finest hour or its swansong?
Friends of Europe, May 2020

Containing Covid-19 in Sweden
Polish Institute of International Affairs, May 2020

In chaos, they thrive: The resurgence of extremist and terrorist groups during the Covid-19 pandemic
European Policy Centre, May 2020

Only a strong, united European response to Covid-19 can overcome the crisis
Friends of Europe, May 2020

Helicoptering money into Europe: The virtual credit card solution
Centre for European Policy Studies, May 2020

Over-reactions to the Coronavirus: A Chinese view on the war of words and geopolitical competition
Egmont, May 2020

How can citizens keep public corruption in check during ‘The Great Lockdown’?
Friends of Europe, May 2020

Migrations et Covid-19 : Un quitte ou double pour l’Europe?
Institut français des relations internationales, May 2020

Here’s why the EU project, age 70, must win pandemic test
Atlantic Council, May 2020

The challenge of the ‘day after’ the discovery of a Covid-19 antidote
Friends of Europe, May 2020

Why European companies might be better equipped to cope with the crisis than their US counterparts
Centre for European Policy Studies, May 2020

Building a post-pandemic world will not be easy
Bruegel, April 2020

Coronavirus risks worsening a food crisis in the Sahel and West Africa
Chatham House, May 2020

Why the UK should extend the transition period
Centre for European Reform, April 2020

Covid-19 and conflict in the Middle East
Clingendael, April 2020

Despite flattening the curve, South Korea faces economic challenges from Covid-19 as does the United States
Peterson Institute for International Economics, April 2020

Saving European defense from the coronavirus pandemic
Carnegie Europe, April 2020

Read this briefing on ‘Which ‘new normal’ after coronavirus?‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Read all EPRS publications on the coronavirus outbreak

Categories: European Union

How does creating LGBTI inclusive regions and cities matter to their development?

Fri, 05/15/2020 - 14:00

Written by Vasileios Margaras,

@ Kraphix / Fotolia

Regions and cities can play an important role in promoting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) equality. Local government entities can use targeted approaches and activities to combat prejudice, discrimination, intimidation and violence against LGBTI people, thus contributing to the wellbeing of their citizens. They can also adopt a pro-LGBTI approach through cooperation with LGBTI groups, inclusive policy processes and provide LGBTI-related support services, activities and information.

LGBTI inclusion may have a positive impact on local and regional development. A recent article on the relationship between LGBT inclusion and economic development argues that exclusionary treatment is not only harmful to LGBT individuals involved, it also carries costs that impact the broader economy such as lost labour time, lost productivity, underinvestment in human capital, and the inefficient allocation of human resources through discrimination in education and hiring practices. The authors suggest that per capita gross domestic product (GDP) is higher in countries that have more legal rights for Lesbian Gay and Bisexual people and that LGBT inclusion and economic development are mutually reinforcing.

An Open for Business report argues that LGBT+ inclusive cities are better placed to develop their global competitiveness. They have stronger ‘innovation ecosystems’, higher rates of entrepreneurialism, greater concentrations of skills and talent and are more likely to become hubs for high-value industries. The report does not claim that LGBT+ inclusion directly causes cities to prosper, but rather that it is beneficial to their human capital and a supportive element in their development. In addition, the presence of a visible LGBT+ community may be taken as a signal that a city will be an attractive place to live. Evidence shows that competitive advantage goes to those cities that are open to new ideas, welcoming to people of different backgrounds, and provide an environment that encourages the free flow of innovation. Another study seems to validate this claim, as it suggests that tolerance concerning immigration and integration in Switzerland explains a large part of the concentration of the creative workforce, followed by tolerance of same-sex partnerships.

Furthermore, LGBTI inclusiveness can be beneficial for the economy overall. A United States Chamber of Commerce Foundation report found that publicly held companies with LGBT-friendly policies have seen their stock prices increase by an average 6.5 % compared with their industry peers. It also suggests that LGBT inclusive companies attract better talent and decreased employee turnover. A World Economic Forum article estimates that countries where LGBT inclusive policies do not exist tend to miss out on economic growth. Various companies aiming at servicing the LGBTI community have been emerging. Furthermore, an United Nations World Tourism Organization Global Report on LGBT tourism shows that LGBT tourism is widely recognised as an important and promising segment of tourism globally. It therefore constitutes a potential additional development activity for European regions and cities.

A number of cities have been influential in setting LGBTI friendly policies in Europe and the world (e.g. the Dutch Rainbow Cities network and the international Rainbow Cities Network). However, there have been also local and regional examples of a degradation in LGBTI rights and freedoms. For instance, since the beginning of 2019, 87 localities (regions, counties and municipalities) have passed bills or have declared themselves ‘LGBTI-free’ or ‘free of LGBT ideology’ in Poland. In November 2019, Members of the European Parliament debated on public discrimination and hate speech against LGBTI people, including LGBTI free zones. This debate was requested at the initiative of the LGBTI Intergroup, a group of Members of the European Parliament who are active in supporting LGBTI rights. In December 2019, the European Parliament deplored attacks carried out by public authorities against LGBTI people during referenda and elections in several EU countries. The Parliament and the European Commission have also strongly condemned the creation of ‘LGBTI-free zones‘ by local authorities in Poland. An EPRS briefing summarises the rights of LGBTI people in the European Union and the role of the Parliament in LBGT equality.

Categories: European Union

Potentially negative effects of internet use

Thu, 05/14/2020 - 14:00

Written by Gianluca Quaglio with Sophie Millar,

© Shutterstock

The internet has received increasingly negative media coverage in recent years. Numerous articles have reported on major privacy scandals and security breaches, the proliferation of fake news, harmful behaviours such as cyber-bullying, cyber-theft, revenge porn and internet addiction, as well as the negative effects that the internet can have on social relationships and social cohesion.

Although the social and economic benefits of the internet are undeniable, the way in which the internet has developed has also been detrimental to a number of core European values such as equality, respect for human rights and democracy. Due to this, technology companies are coming under increasing pressure to mitigate the harmful effects of the internet, whilst politicians and opinion leaders are advocating drastic measures to reverse such impacts.

This paper presents a summary and an update of some key findings of the two-part STOA study entitled ‘Harmful internet use’. It does not cover all potential societal harms relating to the internet, which include – amongst others – negative impacts on privacy, harm related to cybersecurity and cybercrime, negative effects on knowledge and beliefs and negative effects on democracy and democratic citizenship.

Read this complete ‘in-depth analysis’ on ‘Potentially negative effects of internet use‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Categories: European Union

States of emergency in response to the coronavirus crisis: Situation in certain Member States II

Thu, 05/14/2020 - 08:30

Written by Nikolai Atanassov, Hubert Dalli, Costica Dumbrava, Gianna Eckert, Ulla Jurviste, Anja Radjenovic, Sofija Voronova,

© Ivelin Radkov / Adobe Stock

Member States have adopted a range of emergency measures in response to the unprecedented public health crises generated by the coronavirus pandemic. Whereas not all Member States dispose of constitutional mechanisms to enable the declaration of a ‘state of emergency’, all have taken exceptional and far-reaching emergency measures that affect citizens’ rights and freedoms as well as democratic processes. These institutional changes and the restrictions imposed on citizens’ lives pose significant institutional and democratic challenges.

Given their impact on fundamental rights and freedoms and on the normal functioning of democracy, emergency measures need to be carefully examined, matched with adequate legal safeguards, and subject to close democratic scrutiny. This is particularly true in the context of rapid changes of circumstances and in view of new evidence about the evolution of the crisis and its implications. This briefing covers the following countries: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Malta, Austria, Romania, and Slovenia. It focuses on three key aspects: i) the constitutional framework of the state emergency or legitimation of the emergency legislation; ii) the concrete measures adopted; and iii) the extent of parliamentary oversight exercised on the adopted measures.

This briefing is the second in a series aimed at providing a comparative overview of Member States’ institutional responses to the coronavirus crisis. The first in the series covered an initial set of seven Member States.

Read the complete briefing on ‘States of emergency in response to the coronavirus crisis: Situation in certain Member States II‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Categories: European Union

Ex-ante impact assessment in the EU

Wed, 05/13/2020 - 18:00

Written by Joseph Dunne and Katharina Eisele,

Joseph Dunne is Director of the European Parliament Liaison Office (EPLO) in Washington D.C. and Katharina Eisele is a Policy Analyst in the Ex-Ante Impact Assessment Unit of the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) in Brussels. The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not represent an official position of the European Parliament.

© TungCheung / Adobe Stock

Laws and regulation affect all areas of people’s lives and businesses’ activity. ‘While good regulation is conducive to economic growth and wellbeing, inadequate regulation endangers both’, according to the OECD.

Impact assessments, next to public stakeholder consultations and ex-post evaluations, are tools for better law-making at the EU level. These tools aim to improve the quality of EU legislation. What is ex-ante impact assessment and why is it important for good regulation? Ex-ante impact assessment in the EU context can be defined as an attempt to provide, in advance of legislating, a coherent analysis of the reasoning that lies behind, and the foreseeable effects of, any proposed measure or policy initiative.

The EU and the USA have institutionalised frameworks in place to support evidence-based policy and rule-making. While the ways that regulatory policy is shaped are similar, there are also some differences.

Ex-ante impact assessment as an integral part of better regulation

The term ‘better regulation’ has been high on the agenda in Brussels since Jean-Claude Juncker, (now former) European Commission President, made it a top priority in 2015. At that time, the European Commission, as the EU’s executive, adopted its Better Regulation Agenda, in which it committed to consult and listen more, to give everyone the chance to have a say, to explain its policy initiatives better, to open up to scrutiny, as well as to examine the existing stock of EU legislation.

What did this entail? First, better regulation was included in the portfolio of the (then) Commission’s first Vice-President, Frans Timmermans. Moreover, better regulation was set to cover the whole policy cycle, from planning, adoption, design, implementation, application, to evaluation and revision. The Commission also published Better Regulation Guidelines and an accompanying Toolbox (which were updated in 2017), addressed to Commission staff.

Momentum increased a year later, in 2016, when the main three EU institutions (the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of the EU) adopted a new Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making. In this agreement, the three EU institutions recognised their joint responsibility for delivering high-quality EU legislation. The agreement highlighted ex-ante impact assessment as a key element of better regulation and an important tool for improving the quality of legislation without, however, replacing political decisions. The agreement also provides a common definition of impact assessments in its paragraph 12:

‘Impact assessments should cover the existence, scale and consequences of a problem and the question whether or not Union action is needed. They should map out alternative solutions and, where possible, potential short and long-term costs and benefits, assessing the economic, environmental and social impacts in an integrated and balanced way and using both qualitative and quantitative analyses. The principles of subsidiarity and proportionality should be fully respected, as should fundamental rights.’

The European Commission’s role as the EU executive

At the EU level, the European Commission – as the EU executive – has the primary responsibility for conducting impact assessments. The Commission’s internal Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) scrutinises the quality of such impact assessments for the Commission (the RSB Members have a more independent status, with three out of seven Members recruited from outside the European Commission). Impact assessments have to receive a positive opinion from the RSB for the initiative to proceed.

When is an impact assessment necessary? In the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making the European Commission committed to conduct impact assessments of its legislative and non-legislative initiatives, which are expected to have significant economic, environmental or social impacts, and those included in the Commission’s annual work programme. Any other relevant impacts of an initiative also need to be assessed, while taking the principle of proportionate analysis into account. However, an impact assessment should be carried out only when it is useful. According to the Commission, no impact assessment is needed when there is little or no choice available for the Commission; when impacts cannot be clearly identified ex-ante; or when impacts are small.

The Commission took stock of its better regulation activities in 2019 concluding that ‘there is a general recognition that progress has been achieved across several dimensions since 2015’. The OECD also evaluated the EU better regulation system as among the very best. While progress has undeniably been made, there are also areas for further improvement.

In a 2019 review study, the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) emphasised inter alia the need for a balanced consideration of the three types of impacts. This translates into better assessment and screening of the relevant impacts, while maintaining the principle of proportionate analysis. The EPRS also showed that the description and assessment of policy options needed improvement. The European Parliament (EP) has also criticised the lack of impact assessments, especially in the sensitive field of justice and home affairs, in a considerable number of cases.

Strengthening the European Parliament in its scrutiny role

Indeed, impact assessment work has attracted increasing attention in the European Parliament, which became a full co-legislator (together with the Council of the EU) in 2009. Increasing interest in and commitment to carrying out impact assessments in the Parliament has also contributed to a greater understanding of why and how the European Commission proposes its initiatives.

The European Parliament, as co-legislator at the EU level, has established impact assessment capacities to support and empower it in its scrutiny role. In 2012, the Parliament’s Bureau created a Directorate for Impact Assessment and European Added Value – now within the EPRS. One unit within this Directorate, the Ex-Ante Impact Assessment Unit, routinely issues ‘initial appraisals’, which summarise and evaluate the quality of Commission impact assessments accompanying legislative proposals. These initial appraisals aim to inform parliamentary committees about the rationale and evidence base of the Commission’s proposal.

In addition, this unit also provides, upon request from parliamentary committees, other impact assessment work. This also relates to the commitment taken by Parliament to assess the impacts of substantial amendments whenever necessary and relevant, in line with the 2016 Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making. The overall goal is to empower Parliament to exercise its scrutiny role as a co-legislator in the EU legislative process. The specific parliamentary context and the political environment characterise the framework in which impact assessment work is conducted in the European Parliament; high quality research must be delivered under defined, usually tight time constraints.

What’s next: ex-ante impact assessment in the Von der Leyen Commission

In the current European Commission, the portfolio for ‘Interinstitutional Relations and Foresight’ was allocated to Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič. This means he leads the Commission’s work on relations with other EU institutions, better policy-making and strategic foresight. The mission letter that new Commission President Ursula von der Leyen sent to Vice-President Šefčovič in December 2019 specifies ‘the need for the EU to act together where it matters the most and where it can provide the most added value. To do this, we need to strengthen evidence-based policy-making and identify long-term trends on which we need to act and about which we need to know more.’ The Commission also plans to integrate foresight into better regulation and therefore possibly into impact assessment work.

In the mission letter, President von der Leyen recommitted to better regulation by asking Vice-President Šefčovič to coordinate the Commission’s work in this field. The mission letter also explicitly refers to developing and applying a ‘one in, one out’ principle: ‘Every legislative proposal creating new burdens should relieve people and businesses of an equivalent existing burden at EU level in the same policy area. We will also work with Member States to ensure that, when transposing EU legislation, they do not add unnecessary administrative burdens.’

This principle seems, however, to be contradictory to the approach of the previous Juncker Commission, which explicitly rejected upfront burden reduction targets. A 2017 Communication stated that the Commission’s own experience does not suggest that an approach based on ex-ante reduction objectives would produce better results in terms of tackling unnecessary costs and providing tangible benefits for stakeholders than its current approach. This position was reiterated in the Commission’s 2019 better regulation stocktaking exercise.

The question arises how a ‘one in, one out’ principle will be applied by the Commission under President von der Leyen. It remains to be seen what this principle exactly means and entails in an EU context; critical observations have indeed already been raised. It also remains to be seen whether the Commission’s level of ambition concerning better regulation will indeed remain high. A Commission communication originally announced for May 2020 (now possibly postponed due to the corona crisis) is expected to provide clarifications in this regard.

Categories: European Union

Pages

THIS IS THE NEW BETA VERSION OF EUROPA VARIETAS NEWS CENTER - under construction
the old site is here

Copy & Drop - Can`t find your favourite site? Send us the RSS or URL to the following address: info(@)europavarietas(dot)org.