European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

© Adobe Stock

In response to developments such as the growing importance of the digital economy, climate change, migration and terrorism and the United Kingdom leaving the European Union (EU), calls for EU institutional reform and greater citizen involvement have been increasing. Consequently, a reflection on the future of the EU has been taking place not only at an institutional level, but also in academia and in broader political fora.

Members of the European Parliament from the Constitutional Affairs Committee have warned that the Covid‑19 crisis has made the need for reform more crucial than ever. The Conference, say the Members, should be launched as soon as possible so that effective reforms can be implemented based on its outcome. Moreover, a joint declaration between the European Parliament, Council and Commission will need to be concluded before the summer, for the Conference to be launched in September and to be at full speed by the end of the year.

Conference on the Future of Europe

In her July 2019 statement to the European Parliament, then Commission President-elect Ursula von der Leyen committed to establishing a Conference on the Future of Europe, to start in 2020 and run for two years. The purpose of the Conference is to offer a new type of format which would be an inclusive platform to offer new ways for citizens to express their main concerns and have them directly taken into account in the work of the institutions.

Following a plenary debate, the European Parliament adopted its position on the Conference on the Future of Europe in a resolution of 15 January 2020. It considered that the Conference should aim ‘to adopt a bottom-up approach to engaging directly with citizens in a meaningful dialogue’ and that ‘in the long run, a permanent mechanism for engaging with the citizens in contemplating the future of Europe should be envisaged’.

The European Parliament ‘believes that citizens’ participation in the Conference process should be organised in such a way that the diversity of our societies is fully represented’ and ‘believes that ensuring youth participation will be an essential part of the long-lasting impacts of the Conference’.

Committing itself to a genuine follow-up to the Conference without delay, ‘with legislative proposals, initiating treaty change or otherwise’, the European Parliament ‘is of the opinion that a high-level patronage should be ensured by the three main EU institutions at the highest level’, believing that this ‘should guarantee the process and provide for its oversight all as well as kick off the Conference process’.

Additionally, to contribute to the design and structure of the Conference, the European Parliament created a working group, which will prepare proposals for Parliament’s approach to the organisation of the Conference. The working group is composed of one representative per political group, as well as a representative of Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs. At the same time, this committee has launched discussions on the way forward and on how to shape the structure and the scope of the Conference.

European Parliament’s proposals and debates

The Conference on the Future of Europe represents a more formalised and structured continuation of the series of initiatives towards institutional reforms that have been engaged in recent years.

The European Parliament adopted two resolutions in February 2017, proposing institutional adjustments on the European integration process. The first resolution suggested exploring the unused potential of the Lisbon Treaty. The second resolution envisaged more substantial changes to the institutional architecture.

Furthermore, the European Parliament has been organising plenary debates on the Future of Europe, inviting Heads of State or Government to publicly share their visions of the future of the European Union and engage in a debate with Members of Parliament in an open and constructive way. Since the beginning of 2018, several debates have already taken place. A synthesis of the speeches, prepared by the European Parliamentary Research Service, concludes a series of four briefings giving an overview of the Future of Europe debates (I – June 2018; II – October 2018; III – January 2019; IV – April 2019). All speakers considered that the challenges of the 21st century cannot be solved by EU countries acting individually and underlined the need for unity of the European Union. In its resolution of 13 February 2019 on the state of the debate of the future of Europe, the European Parliament underlined that ‘the Union must tackle the challenges of its future with greater and better political integration, with full respect for and promotion of human rights, fundamental freedoms and the democratic principles and by working together’.

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

Further information

• Citizens to be the cornerstone of the Conference on the Future of Europe, European Parliament press release, 15 January 2020
• News headlines – Future of Europe, European Parliament
• Future of Europe, European Parliament Multimedia Centre
• The Future of Europe: Contours of the current debate, European Parliamentary Research Service, April 2018
• Unlocking the potential of the EU Treaties: An article-by-article analysis of the scope for action, European Parliamentary Research Service, January 2019

Written by Magdalena Pasikowska-Schnass,

© spr / Adobe Stock

The digital shift has touched all aspects of human activity, and culture is no exception. Cultural assets and works have been digitised and digital technology has become a tool for novel creations. Digital-born works have enriched the resources available to those interested in culture. Technology has huge potential to facilitate and democratise access to cultural resources.

However, certain technical conditions are required to allow access to these cultural resources, for example webpages devoted to digitised cultural heritage and its hidden treasures as well as those devoted to novel creations. These conditions include an internet infrastructure, computers, tablets, or, more frequently, a smartphone − all of which has a price tag. Moreover, the deployment of such infrastructure needs to be evenly distributed so as to provide equal and democratic access to cultural resources − which is not yet the case.

Access to costly technology is not sufficient. The technology used must go hand in hand with digital skills that are not evenly acquired by all ages and social groups. Persons with disabilities are in a particularly difficult situation, since ICT equipment often does not suit their specific needs. Moreover, cultural resources are often not available in suitable formats for them.

European Union policies and strategies in many areas take all these challenges and access barriers into consideration. EU funds finance connectivity infrastructure in areas in need, training, and educational initiatives across policy areas going from culture and education to innovation and technology. The relationship between technology, science, the arts, and culture is becoming increasingly close in the digital era.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Digital culture − Access issues‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Irmgard Anglmayer,

© Adobe Stock

Ex-ante impact assessment and ex-post evaluation are regulatory policy tools that help inform the policy-making process with evidence-based analysis. Geared towards rationalising policy-making, these tools aim at raising the quality of policies and legislation. The use of impact assessment and evaluation is wide-spread across Europe, as virtually all countries have developed frameworks for regulatory governance. This development is somewhat due to the European Union (EU) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), two actors that have strongly inspired and shaped regulatory policy reform across Europe. However, national Better Regulation agendas are largely government-driven, often leaving parliaments marginalised in the process. Notwithstanding, both the EU and the OECD acknowledge that Better Regulation is a shared responsibility between the executive and the legislative branch. The aim of this study is to shed light on the parliamentary dimension of Better Regulation, by capturing the practices of 38 national parliaments.

The first chapter contextualises the role of parliaments in Better Regulation and reflects on concrete areas for parliaments to join in the process. There is considerable potential for parliamentary involvement at both ends of the policy cycle – impact assessment and evaluation. While such engagement can take multiple forms (spanning from passive scrutiny to an active use of the tools), it relates to two parliamentary core functions: law-making and oversight.

The regulatory policy potential of parliaments is exemplified by the case of the European Parliament (EP), where the use of impact assessment and evaluation has, a mere ten years after their instigation, encountered a high degree of institutionalisation. The systematic use of these regulatory policy tools strengthens EP committees’ position in law-making, and in holding the executive to account. Overall, it facilitates effective scrutiny of European Commission action and leads to better informed policy-making.

Based on survey data from 37 national parliaments across Europe plus the Canadian Parliament, chapters 2 and 3 analyse the level, types, processes, particularities as well as, to the extent possible, the impact of individual parliaments’ engagement in impact assessment and evaluation of those parliaments that choose to get involved. Many do not (or not yet) take an active role: the survey revealed that roughly half of the surveyed parliaments do not engage beyond classical parliamentary scrutiny mechanisms within the general framework of parliamentary control. Non-engagement can have multiple reasons; some survey respondents pointed explicitly at the distinct roles and/or the strict separation of power of the executive and the legislative, while others said they simply do not have the necessary capacities.

Among the EU-27, seven national parliaments (Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Poland and Sweden) engage systematically in their own ex-ante impact assessment work, albeit in fundamentally different ways. The broadest spectrum of impact assessment activities appears to be assumed by the Polish Parliament. An additional seven parliaments carry out smaller-scale impact assessment work (Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Portugal and Spain). Moreover, the Latvian Saeima avails of impact assessment capacities, but has not yet tested them. Out of the 11 surveyed parliaments outside the EU, only Canada engages actively, by informing the law-making process with budgetary impact assessments.

With regard to ex-post evaluation, six EU-27 parliaments have developed structures for substantial involvement (Belgium, France, Italy, Netherlands, Poland and Sweden). Moreover, the research services of the Bulgarian and Latvian parliaments carry out ad hoc evaluations upon request, albeit in low numbers. Four further EU-27 parliaments engage in evaluation activities at a smaller scale, mainly by scrutinising government evaluations in-depth or by performing ex-post budgetary scrutiny (Austria, Ireland, Portugal and Spain).

From amongst the non-EU countries, Switzerland and the United Kingdom (UK) stand out with their policy evaluation mechanisms. The Canadian Parliament has a long heritage of performing post-enactment reviews, as opposed to the parliament of Moldova, which has only set up evaluation capacities with the support of an external capacity-building programme in recent years. Finally, the Albanian and Montenegrin parliaments have lately amended their rules of procedure to allow for policy evaluation. The latter three are examples of countries that have implemented Better Regulation systems in the context of their enlargement or association process with the EU.

Data show that only a few parliaments have a long-standing tradition in regulatory policy activities, and notably in evaluation (e.g. France, Sweden; Switzerland, Canada). Interestingly, some of the most mature evaluation systems can be found in parliaments whose evaluation mandate is constitutionally anchored; this applies to France, Sweden and Switzerland. Constitutional recognition appears to be conducive to the institutionalisation of parliamentary evaluation. Most other parliaments have only recently begun to engage in evaluation. In comparison, parliamentary impact assessment ventures appear more recent (with the notable exception of Sweden).

In general, regulatory policy activities by parliaments are mainly related to oversight and the objective to hold the government to account. Only a few parliaments have taken this further and also embedded impact assessment work into their legislative function. In this respect, they conduct their own impact assessments, either related to legislative initiatives or amendments tabled by parliament, or, more rarely, related to government initiatives.

From a comparative perspective, parliaments engaging in one way or another in regulatory policy show highly diverse patterns. This can be explained by the fact that ambition and type of engagement are determined by a number of external factors, including parliaments’ capacities, political will, the approach of the respective country’s government to Better Regulation and not least the function of the parliament in the constitutional/legal/political system of the country. One conclusion to draw from this study is that parliaments show great diversity in terms of drivers, depth and types of engagement. There is no ‘one size fits all’ approach.

Chapter 4 of this study seeks to capture, from a comparative perspective, some patterns in the regulatory policy activities of the parliaments surveyed. This concerns mainly parliaments’ level of engagement and some reflection on where these impact assessment and evaluation capacities are located in parliaments’ organisation.

Read the complete study on ‘Better Regulation practices in national parliaments‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Maria Niestadt,

© tatomm / Adobe Stock

Carriers and travel companies can offer vouchers for journeys and holidays cancelled due to coronavirus. However, this offer cannot affect passengers’ and travellers’ right to opt for reimbursement instead, the European Commission has explained. At the same time, airlines, various Member States and some Members of the European Parliament have been calling for temporary changes to the rules.

Background

When travel bans and restrictions at borders were introduced, and journeys cancelled due to the Covid-19 outbreak, many citizens were no longer able to travel. Refund requests currently far exceed the level of new bookings. Carriers in all transport modes as well as travel companies are facing sharp cash flow reductions, risking becoming insolvent. To stay solvent, they are offering passengers vouchers instead of refunds. At the same time, travellers also struggle with reduced income and ensuring that their rights are applied.

The rights of passengers in the EU are set in four passenger rights regulations (regulations 261/2004, 1371/2007, 1177/2010 and 181/2011). They give passengers a full set of rights, whether they travel by air, rail, ship, bus or coach. In addition, the EU has adopted a Package Travel Directive (2015/2302). Among others, the EU gives passengers and travellers rights in the event of cancellations, namely the right to be reimbursed (e.g. in money or in the form of a voucher) or re-routed (not applicable in the current situation). The EU rules also set a deadline by when such reimbursement is due: within 7 days (following the passenger’s request) for air, sea and inland waterways transport; within 14 days for rail transport; within 14 days for bus and coach transport and within 14 days after termination of a package travel contract.

European Commission position

The Commission believes that there is no need to change the current rules. In its March 2020 interpretative guidelines on EU passenger rights and in its informal guidance on the application of the Package Travel Directive, the Commission explains that the carrier and the package travel organiser can offer the customer a voucher but the latter has the right to refuse it and opt for a cash refund or re-routing instead. The Commission reiterates this position in its 13 May 2020 recommendation on vouchers, while suggesting how to make them more attractive (e.g. protection against insolvency, validity of at least 12 months, higher value).

European Parliament and Council positions

The European Parliament asked the Commission, in an April resolution, to ensure that the interpretative guidelines on passenger rights are properly implemented. At the same time, media reports that more and more Members of the European Parliament are in favour of changing EU rules on vouchers. Different views on vouchers have also been exchanged during Transport and Tourism (TRAN) Committee meetings.

Transport Ministers discussed the issue of vouchers on 29 April. While a number of Member States support the temporary suspension of EU rules forcing airlines to offer full refunds for cancelled flights, others oppose changing these rules. Twelve Member States have issued a joint statement calling to temporarily allow airlines to choose the means by which passengers are reimbursed.

Stakeholders’ position

Airlines have been asking to quickly amend EU rules and support vouchers or delayed reimbursement of tickets, instead of the current system. Consumer organisations, on the other hand, have called to maintain the current rules and welcomed the idea of making vouchers more attractive.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘EU rules on vouchers offered to passengers and travellers‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

© 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.”

© 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:

• EU Reference Laboratory for alternatives to animal testing (EURL CVAM), the science and knowledge service of the European Commission.
• The EURL ECVAM status report on the development, validation and regulatory acceptance of alternative methods and approaches.
• European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing, which is a voluntary collaboration between the European Commission, European trade associations, and companies from eight industry sectors ‘committed to pooling knowledge and resources to accelerate the development, validation and acceptance of alternative approaches to animal testing’.
• Alternatives to animal testing, the European Food Safety Authority website

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:

• Laboratoire de référence de l’Union pour les méthodes de substitution à l’expérimentation animale (EURL CVAM), le service de la Commission européenne pour la science et la connaissance.
• Le rapport de l’EURL EVCAM sur la mise au point, la validation et l’acceptation réglementaire de méthodes et techniques de substitution.
• Le partenariat européen visant à promouvoir les méthodes de substitution à l’expérimentation animale, une collaboration volontaire entre la Commission européenne, des associations professionnelles européennes et des entreprises de huit secteurs industriels «qui se sont engagées à mettre en commun leurs connaissances et leurs ressources pour accélérer le développement, la validation et l’acceptation de méthodes de substitution à l’expérimentation animale».
• Alternatives à l’expérimentation animale, le site web de l’Autorité européenne de sécurité des aliments (EFSA).

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:

• Referenzlabor der Europäischen Union für alternative Methoden zu Tierversuchen (EURL ECVAM, Wissenschafts- und Wissensdienst der Europäischen Kommission).
• Statusbericht des EURL ECVAM über die Entwicklung, Validierung und rechtliche Anerkennung alternativer Methoden und Vorgehensweisen.
• Europäische Partnerschaft für die Förderung von Alternativkonzepten zu Tierversuchen, ein freiwilliges Kooperationsvorhaben von Europäischer Kommission, europäischen Verbänden und Unternehmen aus acht Wirtschaftszweigen, die sich für die Bündelung von Wissen und Ressourcen engagieren, um die Entwicklung, Validierung und Akzeptanz von Alternativen zu Tierversuchen voranzutreiben.
• Alternativen zu Tierversuchen, Website der Europäischen Behörde für Lebensmittelsicherheit

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:

• EU Reference Laboratory for alternatives to animal testing (EURL ECVAM), het Referentielaboratorium van de Europese Unie voor alternatieve methoden ter vervanging van dierproeven;
• Het rapport “EURL ECVAM status report on the development, validation and regulatory acceptance of alternative methods and approaches”;
• European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing, een samenwerkingsverband op vrijwillige basis tussen de Europese Commissie, Europese bedrijfsverenigingen en bedrijven uit acht bedrijfstakken die ernaar streven hun kennis en middelen te bundelen met het oog op een snellere ontwikkeling, validatie en acceptatie van alternatieve testmethoden;
• Alternatives to animal testing, de website van de Europese Autoriteit voor voedselveiligheid.

 

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.

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.

© 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.

© 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.

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.

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