European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

Written by Vasileios Margaras,

@ Kraphix / Fotolia

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

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

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

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

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

Written by Gianluca Quaglio with Sophie Millar,

© Shutterstock

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

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

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

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

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

© Ivelin Radkov / Adobe Stock

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

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

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

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

Written by Joseph Dunne and Katharina Eisele,

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

© TungCheung / Adobe Stock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The European Commission’s role as the EU executive

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

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

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

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

Strengthening the European Parliament in its scrutiny role

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© igor / Fotolia

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 put pressure on the Egyptian government for the immediate release of Patrick Zaky, an Egyptian human rights advocate and researcher who was studying for a master’s degree on gender and human rights in Bologna. Arrested upon arrival at Cairo airport on 7 February 2020, Zaky was detained by the Egyptian authorities on charges including ‘disseminating false news’, ‘inciting to protest’ and ‘incitement to violence and terrorist crimes’. Citizens first began to write to the President on this subject in February 2020. The President of the European Parliament David Maria Sassoli issued a statement in which he called for the immediate release of Patrick Zaky.

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

We would like to inform you that on 12 February 2020, President Sassoli issued a statement in which he called for Patrick Zaky, the Egyptian student who had been studying in Bologna and who was detained in Cairo, to be released immediately, returned to his loved ones and allowed to resume his studies.

You may also view the relevant video of the President if you wish to do so (video).

Main points made in the reply in Italian

La informiamo che il Presidente Sassoli ha rilasciato una dichiarazione il 12 febbraio 2020 in cui ha chiesto che Patrick Zaky, lo studente egiziano di Bologna detenuto al Cairo, venga immediatamente rilasciato e restituito all’affetto dei suoi cari ed ai suoi studi.

Se lo desidera, può altresì consultare il video afferente del Presidente.

Written by Martin Russell,

© Ricochet64 / Adobe Stock

The World Health Organization (WHO) declared Covid-19, the disease resulting from the novel coronavirus SARS-COV2, a pandemic on 11 March 2020, putting the United Nations (UN) agency in the global spotlight. The WHO is coordinating international efforts to fight the virus, for example by issuing guidelines on preventing and treating the disease, and coordinating research into testing and vaccines.

Critics argue that the WHO was overly accommodating of China, and as a result failed to handle the pandemic effectively in its early stages. According to them, the WHO too readily accepted Chinese reassurances that there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission. The WHO also failed to hold China to account for its initial cover-up, and even praised its transparency.

Even before coronavirus, the WHO already had a mixed track record, including, on the one hand, successful eradication of smallpox, and on the other, a delayed response to the West African Ebola epidemic of 2014, which may have cost thousands of lives. Its failures, both in the Covid-19 pandemic and in previous health crises, highlight long-standing problems: the agency is weak, underfunded, and its complex organisational structure can get in the way of effective action. Underlying such weaknesses is the fact that the WHO is entirely dependent on cooperation from its member states and can only act within the limits set by them.

While Covid-19 has highlighted many of the WHO’s weaknesses, it is also a reminder that diseases respect no borders, and that the organisation’s task of global coordination has become more necessary than ever.

Read the complete briefing on ‘World Health Organization: Is it fit for purpose?‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Clare Ferguson,

© Architectes : Vandenbossche SPRL, CRV S.A., CDG S.P.R.L., Studiegroep D. Bontinck, ©Façade et Hémicycle – Arch M. Boucquillon Belgium – European Union 2019 – Source : EP

Parliament meets again in plenary from Wednesday 13 to Friday 15 May 2020, using the temporary alternative electronic voting procedure introduced since the coronavirus outbreak, with the agenda including up to three voting sessions. Owing to the many votes required – and depending on the number of amendments tabled – the announcement of the results of the final Friday votes may exceptionally take place only on the morning of Saturday 16 May. In contrast to recent sessions, where the coronavirus pandemic has dominated the agenda, Members now turn to ‘normal’ business and in particular, the thorny issue of the EU budget, in what promises to be difficult times ahead.

On Wednesday, following statements from the Council and the European Commission, Members will address the prospects for future financing for the EU and its coronavirus recovery plan. Parliament’s first legislative initiative report of this term requests that the European Commission make a legislative proposal seeks to set up a contingency plan for the EU multiannual financial framework (MFF), where lengthy negotiations in the European Council and Council have delayed agreement. The coronavirus outbreak of course exacerbates both this 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 a new budget, or contingency plan, are agreed soon. The report before Parliament calling on the Commission to make an urgent legislative proposal for such a contingency plan requires an absolute majority of Parliament’s 704 Members to vote in favour, under Article 225 TFEU.

The bulk of Members’ time this session will however be taken up in ensuring that EU funds were used correctly in 2018 by the European Commission and executive agencies, as well as the other EU institutions, the decentralised agencies and joint undertakings. This annual exercise involves consideration of 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). The Committee proposes that Parliament grant discharge for the European Commission, and six agencies, as well as (in a separate report) for the Commission’s disbursement of European Development Funds. However, while noting that the Commission intends to recover €1 billion from Hungarian programmes in which it discovered irregularities, the Committee highlights respect for the rule of law as a precondition of sound financial management, underlining that measures should be taken to ensure that active farmers benefit from agricultural funding. Regarding the rule of law, statements are also expected on Wednesday from the Council and the European Commission, on coronavirus related emergency legislation in Hungary and its impact on fundamental rights.

For EU institutions other than the Commission, the CONT committee recommends granting discharge except, once again (as has been the case since 2009), the European Council and the Council. The committee proposes to postpone a decision in the light of continued lack of cooperation between the institutions. The committee also proposes to postpone a decision in respect of the Economic and Social Committee, until the Committee provides evidence that it has taken measures regarding cases of alleged harassment. For 32 EU decentralised agencies and 8 joint undertakings, the CONT committee recommends discharge in all cases, but nevertheless underlines the continued importance of the principles of good financial management.

Returning to the coronavirus pandemic, Council and the European Commission will intervene in plenary on Wednesday evening to provide statements on the conclusions of the European Council’s video-conference meeting of 23 April 2020, where European leaders discussed coordinated and common measures to address the outbreak and lifting lockdown measures. On Wednesday afternoon, Parliament will consider a proposal put forward by the European Commission, and tabled without a report by Parliament’s Committee on International Trade, that seeks to provide enlargement and neighbourhood partners with macro-financial assistance (MFA) to mitigate the effects of the pandemic. If agreed, the MFA package would provide €3 billion to help enlargement candidate countries such as Albania and North Macedonia, and those in the southern neighbourhood such as Jordan and Tunisia, which face a recession resulting from the coronavirus pandemic. Statements are also expected on Thursday from the Council and the Commission on the use of contact tracing apps in the fight against the virus. Members will debate vaccines and therapeutics in the context of Covid‑19 on Thursday afternoon.

Members will vote on Wednesday afternoon on a report recommending that Parliament agree to an extension of the Protocol on the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the EU and Mauritania, currently under renegotiation. This would rollover an existing extension to the 2015 agreement whereby the EU gain access rights to Mauritania’s mixed fisheries in return for payment and for support for the country’s fisheries sector.

On Thursday morning, representatives of the Council and the European Commission are expected to return to the chamber to make statements on the recent 70th anniversary of the Schuman Declaration, generally recognised as the founding document of today’s European Union.

Written by Tatjana Evas, Aleksandra Heflich, Niombo Lomba, Klaus Müller, Cecilia Navarra, Lauro Panella, Jérôme Saulnier,

© Adobe Stock

Although the European Union is about much more than economics – promoting peace, common values, democratic governance, international development, human rights, health, social protection, research and innovation, and many other public goods – the process of European integration has been key to driving economic growth for half a century, generating significant gains in gross domestic product (GDP) for EU Member States both collectively and individually.

This EPRS paper focuses on the economic benefits of common action and what is at risk if the current coronavirus crisis and its aftermath were to stall or reverse the process of European integration. It attempts to quantify the losses entailed if the economic downturn caused by the pandemic were to result in the gradual dismantling of the EU project and a parallel failure to take advantage of the unexploited potential of collective public goods that could yet be created. In this respect, the study makes use of two complementary concepts: European added value, which attempts to identify the benefit of existing collective action at European level, and the cost of non-Europe, which assesses the benefits foregone by not taking further action in the future.

Even cautious estimates suggest that dismantling the EU single market would cost the European economy between 3.0 and 8.7 per cent of its collective GDP, or between €480 billion and €1 380 billion per year. In parallel, the potential cost of non-Europe in 50 policy fields was identified by EPRS in 2019 as around €2.2 trillion or 14 per cent of EU GDP (by the end of a ten-year running-in period). It follows that if both problems were to develop at once, the EU economy would eventually be between 17.0 and 22.7 per cent smaller than might otherwise be the case. (This is in addition to any direct contraction of the economy as a result of the coronavirus crisis itself, which could be around 7.5 per cent of GDP in 2020, or €1 160 billion).

The potential figures for the first component would depend on the extent of any dismantling of the Union, which in this paper is analysed through various scenarios, such as the substitution of the EU with a standard regional trade agreement, further loosening of the Union by abandoning the Schengen Area and coordination in other areas, and/or full dissolution of the EU with a fall-back to World Trade Organization (WTO) rules.

Read this complete ‘in-depth analysis’ on ‘Coronavirus and the cost of non-Europe: An analysis of the economic benefits of common European action‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Ariane Debyser,

© shintartanya / Adobe Stock

One of the first, and most visible impacts of the Covid-19 crisis was on transport, travel and mobility. In early March 2020, European Union (EU) Member States had already reintroduced border controls at internal Schengen borders on the grounds of an immediate threat to public policy and on 17 March 2020, the Heads of State or Government agreed to reinforce the external borders by applying a coordinated temporary restriction on non-essential travel to the EU. Travel restrictions and containment measures adopted to limit the spread of the disease, within and at the external border of the EU, have led to drastic reductions in traffic in all transport modes.

In a communication on the coordinated economic response to Covid-19 published on 13 March 2020, the European Commission underlined that the pandemic is having a major impact on transport systems and that disruption in the flow of goods leads to severe economic damage. The Commission mentioned that, in addition to the coordination and guidance efforts and the actions to limit the spread of the virus, it would act to tackle and mitigate the socio-economic consequences of the pandemic, which are exceptionally strong in the key areas of transport, travel and tourism.

The Commission has already adopted measures on mobility and transport and is working with Member States to stop the spread of the disease; ensure essential goods and services such as food, medicines and protective equipment circulate freely in the internal market; and to guarantee the free movement of workers, especially those that exercise critical occupations such as health professionals and transport workers. To tackle the risk of serious economic downturn, the Commission has adopted a temporary framework for State aid measures that allows EU countries to provide assistance to companies. Some sector specific measures have already been approved, including on transport.

Read the complete Briefing on ‘Mobility, transport and coronavirus‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Suzana Anghel,

© AdobeStock

The EU-Western Balkans Summit, which normally would have been held in Zagreb, took place by video-conference on Wednesday 6 May 2020. Twenty years after the Zagreb Summit in 2000, which first expressed the ‘European perspective’ of the countries of the Western Balkans, this video-summit aimed to stress unity and solidarity between the EU and the Western Balkans during the coronavirus crisis and beyond, underlining the region’s strategic importance for the Union. The focus was on a joint response to the crisis and on the common commitment to support the political, economic and social transformation of the region. The EU and Western Balkan leaders adopted the Zagreb Declaration, reconfirming the region’s European perspective, albeit without mentioning enlargement as a process. The President of the European Council, Charles Michel, recalled the importance of pursuing reforms in the region, of building a strong democratic framework respectful of the rule of law, and of continuing to fight corruption. The President of the European Parliament, David Sassoli, sent a strong message of unity, stressing that the Western Balkans are part of Europe’s future and should be involved in the work of the forthcoming Conference on the Future of Europe.

1. Background

On 23 April 2020, the President of the European Council, Charles Michel, announced that the EU-Western Balkans summit would take place on 6 May as initially planned, despite the coronavirus outbreak, but by video-conference. Holding the planned summit two decades after the 2000 Zagreb EU-Western Balkans summit, was, first and foremost, important for the current Croatian Presidency of the Council of the EU, which regarded this year’s Zagreb summit as the highlight of its first six-month presidency. The summit – the first international event with external counterparts to be attended by (almost) all members of the European Council since the outbreak – allowed EU leaders to give a strong political message to the Western Balkans and signal the importance of the region for the EU at a time when both parties are severely challenged by the coronavirus crisis.

2. Agenda and participation

The summit was preceded by a preparatory meeting held in Brussels on 17 February 2020, which allowed the leaders of the Western Balkan countries, and the Presidents of the European Council, Charles Michel, and the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, to consider the main agenda points for the summit. At that time, those included respect for the rule of law and the fight against organised crime. In the meantime, the coronavirus crisis shifted attention to the health crisis and its economic and societal consequences for both the EU and the Western Balkans, leaving almost no space for the consideration of other policy issues. The commitment to a European perspective for the region, included in the Zagreb declaration, is the main element of continuity between the preparatory meeting and the summit itself.

The summit brought together the leaders of the EU-27, including the Prime Minister of Croatia, Andrej Plenković, representing the Croatian Presidency of the Council, and of the Western Balkan countries, namely Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia, as well as Charles Michel, who chaired the meeting, Ursula von der Leyen, and the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell. The meeting was also attended by the President of the European Parliament, David Sassoli, while other institutions, including the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the European Investment Bank were also represented.

3. Main results of the meeting

The summit delivered a message of unity and solidarity between the EU Member States and the Western Balkan countries, confirming the region’s strategic importance for the EU. Unity was found not just by placing the Western Balkans in the spotlight for the time of the summit, but through concrete actions, stepped up recently as part of the response to the coronavirus crisis.

Covid-19 joint response

The main focus of the summit was on the joint response to the coronavirus crisis. EU and Western Balkans leaders analysed the immediate response to the health crisis as well as the medium-term action needed to overcome the health, economic and societal aspects of the crisis. President von der Leyen stressed that the crisis had increased the feeling of unity between the EU and the Western Balkans, praised the support offered by countries in the region in the repatriation of EU citizens, and welcomed contributions pledged at the Coronavirus Global Response pledging conference initiated by the Commission. The High Representative, Josep Borrell, stressed that it was only by working together that the EU and the Western Balkans could overcome the coronavirus crisis.

The communication on ‘Support to the Western Balkans in tackling Covid-19 and the post-pandemic recovery’ represented the European Commission’s contribution to the summit, and the basis for the leaders’ discussion. The European Commission reaffirmed that the region is an integral part of Europe, and outlined concrete aid measures, including a €3.3 billion short- and longer-term assistance package, intended to address the Covid-19 crisis in the Western Balkan region. Both parties have acknowledged that aid and support provided by the EU ‘goes far beyond what any other partner has provided’ to the region. The Zagreb declaration adds that the EU is ‘determined to intensify its engagement at all levels’ in the longer term. The European Commission is expected to present a recovery plan later this year, funded under the EU’s 2021-2027 long-term budget (MFF), which is still under negotiation.

President von der Leyen stressed that the Western Balkans have been associated with programmes, including the Joint Procurement Initiative to buy medical supplies, usually only open to EU Member States. By doing so, the EU not only confirmed the strategic importance of the Western Balkans, but also applied the new methodology for enlargement which allows ‘phasing in’ to EU programmes.

Messages from the European Parliament President

President Sassoli praised the support received by the EU from the Western Balkan countries ‘in combating the coronavirus’, and stressed the amount of €3.3 billion in aid provided to the region by the EU, of which €38 million is immediate assistance to the public-health sector.

European perspective of the Western Balkans

The EU leaders reaffirmed their support for the European perspective of the Western Balkans through the Zagreb declaration. The declaration, similar to the Sofia declaration adopted in 2018, does not include the word ‘enlargement’, a sign of persistent sensitivity on this topic among EU Member States. This development is fully in line with previous European Council conclusions, which in 2017 and 2018, also mentioned a European perspective for the Western Balkans without mentioning the word ‘enlargement’, this despite an attempt by the then European Council President, Donald Tusk, to push for more clarity.

A reference to enlargement as a process, and not as a political end-point, was made in the European Council conclusions of October 2019. At the time, the European Council was faced with deadlock and no progress could be made on greenlighting the opening of accession negotiations with Albania and North Macedonia. In the interim, the introduction of a new enlargement methodology in February 2020 allowed the deadlock to be overcome, and, as of March 2020, the two countries have been invited to open accession negotiations. This is a recognition of progress made on reforms by the two countries, progress noted several times since 2018 by the European Commission in its reports. It is also, in the case of North Macedonia, a recognition of the normalisation of relations with Greece, through the ratification of the Prespa Agreement, and with Bulgaria, following the ratification of a friendship treaty. In the latter case, hiccups are not to be excluded, as Bulgaria could be tempted to delay the actual date of the start of pre-accession negotiations with North Macedonia pending the result of the work of the mixed history committee mandated to consider the common history of the two countries.

Prime Minister Plenković rightly noted that enlargement was a lengthy process and that, 20 years back, at the first Zagreb EU-Western Balkans summit, his country, Croatia, was among those aspiring to full membership. He stressed that, for the Western Balkan countries, the natural path is to join the EU and added that, from Croatia’s perspective, the decision to open accession negotiations with Albania and North Macedonia had ‘taken too long’. Despite this recent critical step of the EU with respect to the Western Balkans, the opening of accession negotiations with the two countries is not mentioned in the Zagreb declaration. The North Macedonian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nikola Dimitrov, said that he would have wished for more clarity and ‘been even happier with a reference to enlargement or completion of the European Union’.

The Western Balkan states are at different stages in the enlargement process, some –Montenegro and Serbia – are well advanced in their accession negotiations whilst others – Albania and North Macedonia – are to open accession negotiations in the months to come. Two other counties from the region, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo, are further behind. Prime Minister Plenković said that Bosnia and Herzegovina ‘deserved to be granted candidate country status. The Spanish Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez – the first ever Spanish Prime Minister to attend, under a carefully negotiated framework, a European summit at which Kosovo was represented – encouraged both Serbia and Kosovo to make progress in the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue, which is an essential element in allowing both parties to move forward on their respective enlargement paths.

Messages from the European Parliament President

President Sassoli praised enlargement as ‘one of the EU’s greatest triumphs’ and wished to assure the Western Balkan partners of the European Parliament’s intention ‘to remain a reliable partner standing alongside candidate countries’. He stressed that the EP had welcomed the decision to open accession negotiations with Albania and North Macedonia, and referred to the Speakers’ Summit he had organised in January 2020 in Brussels with the speakers of the Western Balkan parliaments.

EU values and norms and the continuation of reforms

An essential part of the discussion focused on the respect of EU values and norms, on democratic institution-building and on the continuation of reforms. The new enlargement methodology strengthened the political dimension of the process and has introduced a reversibility mechanism in case of stagnation or backsliding in the reform process, in particular on rule-of-law-related reforms. President Michel recalled the importance of preserving the rule of law, and stressed the need to continue the fight against corruption. President von der Leyen mentioned freedom of the press, which she qualified as ‘a cornerstone of democracy and in Europe’s DNA’. She warned that a ‘strong and free press’ was the best rampart against disinformation.

Messages from the European Parliament President

President Sassoli warned that the ‘more political nature’ of the new enlargement methodology ‘must not undermine the EU’s commitment to step-by-step accession on the basis of the individual merits of each candidate country’.

4. The Zagreb declaration and its Sofia predecessor

The Zagreb declaration is in many points similar to the Sofia declaration adopted in 2018. At the political level, both declarations confirmed the European perspective of the Western Balkans, while neither of them mentioned enlargement. With respect to the guiding principles, both declarations speak about unity and solidarity, whilst expressing attachment to European values and principles, including to the rule of law, democracy, good governance, good neighbourly relations, and political, economic and societal transformation of the region. As regards policy priorities, most of those mentioned in the Sofia declaration – economics, connectivity, counter-terrorism, foreign and security policy, migration, countering disinformation and hybrid threats – were confirmed in the Zagreb declaration. A notable difference, due to the coronavirus outbreak, is the high profile of the health dimension in the Zagreb declaration, an aspect absent from the Sofia declaration.

Another common point of the Zagreb and Sofia declarations is their timeliness, reflecting the exceptional circumstances under which the respective summit declarations were adopted. The Sofia summit took place at a moment when there was a real risk for the Western Balkans to depart from their European path due to domestic political fragility, an accumulated fatigue among the population with uncertainty about the European perspective for the region, and mounting external interference, in particular from China, Russia and Saudi Arabia. Some of these fragilities persist, and the coronavirus crisis, with its horizontal impact on all government policies, could have deepened them; hence the importance of maintaining the Zagreb summit, even in the video-conference format.

5. The way forward

Prime Minister Plenković expressed the wish that the pattern of EU-Western Balkan summits be continued and that another summit be organised in two years’ time. In the interim, the next major step in EU-Western Balkan relations will be the beginning of accession negotiations with Albania and North Macedonia. The European Commission is to prepare the negotiating framework in view of its adoption by the Council. The start of accession negotiations is dependent on continued delivery of reforms and, in the case of North Macedonia, on the successful implementation of good neighbourly agreements, in particular the friendship treaty with Bulgaria.

Read this briefing on ‘Outcome of the Zagreb EU-Western Balkans video-summit of 6 May 2020‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Naja Bentzen,

© artyway / Adobe Stock

Media freedom has increasingly come under the spotlight in recent years. In its 2019 report on media freedom, Freedom House argued that media freedom around the world was coming under growing threat both in democratic and non-democratic countries, whilst in its 2020 edition of the World Press Freedom Index, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) argue that the next decade will be pivotal in ensuring the preservation of media freedom. This threat to media freedom is often attributed to the recent rise of populist and authoritarian governments, with many world-leaders – including leaders of major democracies – increasingly seeming to view free media as an opponent, rather than a fundamental aspect of a free society.

The knock-on effects of such actions can be grave, particularly given the important role that a free media plays in upholding democracy and democratic freedoms. Media freedom and pluralism are part of the rights and principles enshrined in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and in the European Convention on Human Rights.

As the coronavirus pandemic continues to have significant ramifications for public health, social welfare and the economy, the crisis also presents a significant threat to media freedom. Media freedom proponents have warned that governments across the world could use the coronavirus emergency as a pretext for the implementation of new, draconian restrictions on free expression, as well as to increase press censorship.

In many countries, the crisis has been exploited for just such reasons, with political leaders using it as a justification for additional restrictions on media freedom. In its 2020 World Press Freedom Index, RSF argues that certain governments have used the crisis to impose media restrictions that in ordinary times would be impossible. The Council of Europe (CoE) Platform for the Protection of Journalists has warned that the fresh assault on media freedom amid the Covid‑19 pandemic has worsened an already gloomy media freedom outlook.

Read the complete briefing on ‘The impact of coronavirus on media freedom‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Christian Salm,

© European Communities, 1950; Source: EC – Audiovisual Service

Aiming to secure peace in Europe after the horrors of the Second World War, the Schuman Declaration proposed cooperation among European countries in two key economic areas central to rearmament and warfare: coal and steel. As an institutional framework for this cooperation, the Schuman Declaration proposed the creation of the first supranational organisation in Europe, the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). Established in 1952, the ECSC laid the foundations for today’s European Union (EU). The Schuman Declaration is therefore seen as the EU’s founding act. Presented by the French Foreign Minister, Robert Schuman, on 9 May 1950, this year marks the 70th anniversary of the Schuman Declaration.

Europe in the mid-20th century

In the middle of the last century, coal and steel played a significant political and economic role in Europe. As essential elements in national defence industries, in the potential to wage war, and in economic growth, they were seen as indicators of state power. After the Second World War, however, coal, one of the most important energy sources for steel production, was a scarce resource. American and British intentions to lift production limits for the German steel industry from mid-May 1950 therefore put pressure on France to find a swift solution to the ‘German issue’. In other words, France had to define a strategy to safeguard itself against potential German aggression and to make sure to benefit in political and economic terms from the German economic resurgence. From the end of the war, France had followed a policy aimed at preventing Germany from getting back on its feet, through territorial fragmentation and disarmament. From 1949 on, however, French foreign policy on the ‘German issue’ became increasingly shaped by moves towards Western European integration. Similarly, in Germany, plans for Western European integration were also discussed, as a way to abolish the Occupation Statute and to obtain sovereignty for the Federal Republic founded in 1949. The Schuman Declaration provided a simple but convincing answer as to how to secure peace in Europe by combining the difficult ‘German issue’ with thinking on the new political architecture of post-war Europe.

Schuman Declaration: Monnet’s supranational innovation

Jean Monnet, guiding light of the Schuman Declaration and first President of the ECSC High Authority, alerted Schuman and French Prime Minister George Bidault to the possible consequences for the French economy of an unimpeded German economic recovery, in an urgent appeal in early May 1950. At that time, Monnet was Head of the French Planning Committee and familiar with contemporary thinking on transnational cooperation in the coal and steel sectors. He worked from mid-April 1950 on the text which later became the Schuman Declaration. There are a total of nine recognised versions of the text. Its main objectives were to ensure: peace, security, European unification, modernisation of the French economy, and improvement of industrial production conditions, especially for steel production. This was to be achieved by the establishment of a common market for coal and steel, and equivalent production conditions for France and Germany. The really innovative element of the Schuman Declaration, however, was the institutional creation of a new European political organisation. This encompassed a supranational design in the form of the High Authority (today’s European Commission), equipped with real competence and independent of any direct influence from the participating Member States.

Monnet could not convince Bidault to agree to his plan. Schuman, in contrast, saw it as an opportunity for French foreign policy. Having obtained agreement in principle from German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, Schuman presented the Declaration in a press conference at the Quai d’Orsay on 9 May 1950. As the text, marking a turning point in European history, was read out by Schuman, it was thereafter known as the Schuman Declaration.

Objective: Peace in Europe

To find a way to secure peace in Europe in the post-war era was a difficult task. Nevertheless, it was precisely this task to which the Schuman Declaration attempted to find an answer. The Declaration’s first two sentences made this absolutely clear. They read: ‘World peace cannot be safeguarded without the making of creative efforts proportionate to the dangers which threaten it. The contribution which an organised and living Europe can bring to civilisation is indispensable to the maintenance of peaceful relations.’ It is thus safe to say that the Schuman Declaration was, in essence, a peace project. This was furthermore underlined by the day chosen to present the Declaration, 9 May 1950, exactly one day after the fifth anniversary of the capitulation of Nazi Germany. Without the establishment of a common market for coal and steel, the creation of a strong supranational institution and the possibility for mutual monitoring, it is possible that the European countries might have sleepwalked into another war. The 1951 Paris Treaty founding the ECSC adopted the essence of the Schuman Declaration, putting securing peace in Europe first and foremost.

Negotiating the European Coal and Steel Community

On 3 June 1950, the six participating countries – Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands – announced the launch of an intergovernmental conference to flesh out the Schuman Declaration. The countries’ agreement to start negotiations was due to both political and economic reasons. Politically, no country wanted to remain outside the newly developing Europe represented by the ECSC. Economically, Italy and the Benelux countries especially, sought solutions to energy issues due to the lack of coal and emerging globalisation, which put European energy sectors under pressure from cheaper energy sources coming from non-European countries.

See also the interactive infographic on EP Network of Political Houses and Foundations of Great Europeans

Intensive negotiations started on June 1950 in Paris and took almost one year. For example, various changes to the ECSC’s institutional form were made during the negotiations. While Monnet had designed the High Authority as a small, completely independent and highly powerful body, the Benelux countries in particular demanded the creation of various control bodies. Therefore, further entities were added to the institutional set-up, including the Court of Justice, a special Council of Ministers (equivalent to today’s Council of the European Union), and the ECSC Common Assembly, the forerunner of the European Parliament. The High Authority’s competences softened, the Paris Treaty establishing the ECSC is not therefore identical to the institutional framework envisaged by Monnet when preparing the Schuman Declaration. Signed on 18 April 1951, the Paris Treaty entered into force after ratification on 23 July 1952. (Concluded for a fixed period of 50 years, the Treaty expired in July 2002, although its provisions had by then largely been subsumed into the EU Treaties.)

Historical significance

By creating the ECSC, for the first time in European history, participating states voluntarily gave up part of their sovereignty to an organisation at European level. The Schuman Declaration thereby allowed the establishment of the present-day EU by preparing its historical institutional framework. This included, as one of the most important Schuman Declaration achievements, the breakthrough in Franco-German reconciliation. Clearly its most important legacy, however, is that the supranational institutions for which the Declaration paved the way have contributed a great deal to guaranteeing the peaceful co-existence of European Union Member States over the last 70 years. It is therefore fitting to call the Schuman Declaration an innovative and visionary peace treaty.

Further material

The ‘digital exhibition’ prepared for the 70th anniversary of the Schuman Declaration:

• Europeana
• Historical Archives of the European Parliament
• Exhibition for the 70th anniversary of the Schuman Declaration, Multimedia Centre of the European Parliament

Read this ‘At a glance’ on ‘Schuman Declaration: 70 years on‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Gianluca Guaglio,

Recent research suggests that the future combat against antimicrobial resistance (AMR) may involve probiotic-based approaches. Their use in our microbial ecosystems, including humans, animals and the healthcare environment, may provide a novel approach which deserves exploration.

© Shutterstock

Antimicrobials are agents that kill or prevent the growth of micro-organisms, such as antibiotics which target bacteria. The rampant and sometimes inappropriate use of antibiotics in humans, animals, and the environment has led to the growing global health threat of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). This refers to the natural adaptation of bacteria to survive antibiotic attack. When resistance has been acquired, it can spread quickly among species. Once such resistance mechanisms exist, it is very difficult to get rid of them.

Multi-drug resistant (MDR) micro-organisms have appeared, making therapeutic treatments difficult, and some of them may become untreatable. More than 33 000 deaths from drug-resistant bacterial infections alone are reported every year in Europe. This figure could rise tenfold by 2050. Targeting AMR is a critical focus for sustainable healthcare in the EU and worldwide. Antibiotic use and AMR are not only related to human health but also to veterinary medicine, agricultural livestock management, and food production. As the antibiotic-resistant strains continue to grow, the use of probiotics as a potential substitute for antibiotics is becoming more popular for human, veterinary and environmental application.

Potential impacts and developments

The microbiota is a collective term referring to the reservoirs of micro-organisms living in the human body, in animals, and within the environment. Although the terms are used interchangeably, there is a slight difference between microbiome and microbiota. In fact, ‘microbiota’ refers to the actual organisms (‘bugs’), and ‘microbiome’ to the organisms and their genes. Probiotics are beneficial bacteria found in certain foods or supplements. They are ‘live micro-organisms that confer a health benefit to the host when administered in adequate amounts’, according to United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization guidelines. Commonly used probiotics include Lactobacillus, Bacillus, Escherichia or Streptococcus, however combinations of more than one are common, to achieve maximal effects. Probiotic use is increasingly practised for human, veterinary and environmental applications. Consumption via the gastrointestinal route is the most common application in both human and veterinary uses.

The use of probiotics instead of antibiotics for treating infectious and non-infectious diseases to address the problem of AMR has been explored. Briefly, the idea is that instead of using antibiotics to kill pathogenic microbes, the establishment of commensal and sometimes mutualistic microbes may hinder the growth of disease-causing microbes found in the same host microbial environment. By limiting the use of antibiotics, probiotic use may help to decrease the rate of development of antibiotic-resistant strains resulting from widespread antibiotic use. In addition, there is evidence that maintaining what is considered ‘normal’ microbiota for certain host microbial environments may prevent diseased conditions – that are not necessarily of infectious etiology – and may improve general health outcomes.

Evidence from human studies has shown the potential of probiotics to tackle a number of pathological conditions. Probiotic supplementation may reduce episodes of common infectious diseases, including respiratory tract infections and diarrhoea, particularly for a specific condition, such as Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea. In addition, probiotic supplementation may reduce the duration of symptoms in otherwise healthy children and adults with common acute respiratory conditions. By decreasing the incidence and severity of common acute infections, probiotic supplementation could be associated with decreased antibiotic use.

Specific sets of subjects – critically ill and oncology patients – may have higher risks of microbiome perturbation leading to infectious disease. Although still unclear, probiotics exert a heterogeneous positive influence in preventing adverse outcomes in these patients. In addition, it is considered that a proportion of antibiotic prescriptions may be a response to emotional rather than medical factors. The recommendation to take a probiotic may offer a ‘tool’ for doctors, fulfilling the need to reduce patient anxiety. Other human health conditions – not of infectious origin – are now being connected to the human gut microbiota. A common pathophysiological element of these diseases is the deviation from the ‘normal’ human gut microbial ecology. Obesity, diabetes mellitus, irritable bowel syndrome, Crohn’s disease, necrotizing enterocolitis, and several other pathological conditions, are currently being associated with dysbiosis in the human gut microbiota.

Listen to policy podcast ‘What if we could fight antibiotic resistance with probiotics?’ on YouTube.

In recent decades, antibiotics have been exploited as livestock feed additives due to their effectiveness in increasing weight gain and preventing disease through modifications of the gastrointestinal flora. Since 2006, due to their harmful effect on AMR, the EU banned the use of antibiotics in animal feed, and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has instituted guidelines on the use of food additives in animal products that may potentially spread AMR genes. However, other developed nations, such as the United States of America, have not imposed strict regulatory policies on antibiotic use for livestock. Probiotics, on the other hand, are among the approved additives allowed in animal feed to promote gut flora equilibrium/symbiosis and health. Some beneficial effects of probiotic use in animal feed have been noted. For example, probiotic use in livestock farming of chickens and turkeys shows an increased resistance to Salmonella infections. In addition, probiotic administration reduced overall costs of production of chickens and turkeys. Aquaculture provides another case, where the need to improve safe aquatic production for human consumption has stimulated probiotics development and applications. Probiotics are also applied during all phases of swine production, to mitigate disease, increase product quality and reduce environmental pollutants.

In the healthcare environment, AMR can also contribute to serious healthcare-associated infections (HAI). Persistent contamination of surfaces contributes to infection transmission, which cannot be completely controlled by conventional cleaning. In fact, micro-organisms have the ability to survive for long periods of time on surfaces, from where they are easily transmitted. A review of recent evidence has shown support for a probiotic cleaning hygiene system (PCHS). There is evidence that instead of trying to eradicate all pathogens, for example on hospital surfaces, it may be more effective to replace them with beneficial bacteria, in order to prevent infections. Replacing conventional cleaning with a PCHS is associated with a significant decrease in HAI incidence and a stable decrease in surface pathogens.

Anticipatory policy-making

There is still a lack of clear evidence on how exactly probiotics produce their benefits. It has been suggested that they can act by different mechanisms, comprising secretion of antibacterial chemicals, stimulation and modulation of the immune responses, competition between nutrition and specific adhesion sites, and inhibition of toxic protein expression in gastro-intestinal pathogens. Probiotic use is not exempted from complications: a major issue being acquired antibiotic resistance genes. A risk of pathogenic microbes acquiring antibiotic-resistance genes from probiotic microbes exists, and vice versa, and researchers advise renewed efforts to examine this risk in view of the growing global concern regarding antimicrobial resistance. For example, if undercooked meat is consumed by a livestock animal fed with probiotics containing antimicrobial-resistant genes, this could also be a potential source of AMR in human microbiota. A combined effort at a global level is necessary to implement probiotic screening and regulation for those used in both livestock and human applications. Increased and long-term exposure of probiotics also needs further research. As such, it is imperative to screen microbes effectively for antibiotic resistance genes before using them as probiotics. So far, no worldwide health authority (e.g. WHO, FAO) has taken full responsibility for screening for antibiotic resistance genes in probiotic micro-organisms.

It should be emphasised that the overall success of probiotics in replacing or reducing the need for antimicrobials may be modest, conditional, strain-dependent, and transient. However, any alternative which may reduce the rise of AMR is worth investigating. In addition, there is no one-size-fits-all probiotic that works well for everyone, as the gut microbiome differs between individuals. However, with the development of metabolic engineering and synthetic biology, engineering of probiotics opens up possibilities to design microbes to target specific tissues and cells rather than the whole body and to create novel probiotics with desired characteristics and functionalities. Increasing evidence endorses the role of ecological interactions among humans, animals, and the microbial environment in influencing antibiotic-resistance genes. As such, in addressing the problem of antibiotic resistance, an ecological approach is needed, where both the agricultural use of antibiotics and the clinical prescription of antibiotics in humans and at an environmental level is properly regulated.

Read this ‘At a glance’ on ‘What if we could fight antibiotic resistance with probiotics?‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© luxpainter / Adobe Stock

A number of European countries have now started, or will soon start, relaxing the lock-downs put in place to slow the spread of the lethal coronavirus. The goal is to begin the process of reviving their economies, which have been hit very hard by the crisis, without prompting a further upsurge in the pandemic. While still assessing the immediate impacts of the crisis and actively examining various ‘exit strategies’, analysts are also shifting their focus towards identifying the medium- and long-term legacy of the crisis, the likely shape of the ‘world after coronavirus’, and the best policies for the future.

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 28 April.

Salvaging globalisation
European Council on Foreign Relations, May 2020

IMF needs new thinking to deal with coronavirus
Chatham House, May 2020

Coronavirus has shown us a world without traffic. Can we sustain it?
Brookings Institution, May 2020

Inequality and repression undermine democracy and market economy worldwide
Bertelsmann Stiftung, April 2020

Covid-19 provides China a historic chance to tilt the world in its favor, but it may not last long
Atlantic Council, May 2020

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

Le déconfinement: Quelques enjeux
Institut français des Relations internationales, April 2020

Where in the world is the EU now?
Carnegie Europe, April 2020

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

Facts, not words: The EU role in the de-confinement phase
Bruegel, April 2020

Europe’s hidden weapon in combatting Covid-19: The Single Market
European Policy Centre, April 2020

Racing against Covid-19: A vaccines strategy for Europe
Bruegel, April 2020

Can protest movements in the MENA region turn Covid-19 into an opportunity for change?
Chatham House, April 2020

Covid-19: Le monde d’après est déjà là…
Institut français des Relations internationales, April 2020

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

Covid-19 bends the rules on internal border controls: Yet another crisis undermining the Schengen acquis?
Finnish Institute for International Affairs, April 2020

The Coronavirus pandemic is a defining moment for the EU and its relations with China
German Marshall Fund, April 2020

The Hong Kong way to combat Covid-19: ‘Take things in our own hands’
Heinrich Böll Stiftung, April 2020

Le Covid-19 dans la relation Europe-Chine
Institut français des Relations internationales, April 2020

The national debt dilemma
Council on Foreign Relations, April 2020

How is the Coronavirus pandemic changing thinking on security?
German Marshall Fund, April 2020

Latin America’s Covid-19 moment: Differences and solidarity
Chatham House, April 2020

La défense française face au Covid-19 : Quels défis par-delà l’horizon?
Institut français des Relations internationales, April 2020

Les crises du Covid-19 en Afrique australe : Inquiétudes et premières conséquences
Institut français des Relations internationales, April 2020

What world post-Covid-19? Three scenarios
Atlantic Council, April 2020

The impact of Covid-19 on emerging markets
Bruegel, April 2020

Assessing the early response to Beijing’s pandemic diplomacy
Council on Foreign Relations, April 2020

How testing can provide a way out of coronavirus shutdowns
Atlantic Council, April 2020

Society max: How Europe can help Syrians survive Assad and coronavirus
European Council on Foreign Relations, April 2020

Showing true illiberal colours: Rule of law vs Orbán’s pandemic politics
Centre for European Policy Studies, April 2020

A Covid-19 moment for technological sovereignty in Europe?
Istituto Affari Internazionali, April 2020

Covid-19: N’enterrons pas trop vite l’Occident !
Institut Montaigne, April 2020

La Russie face à un triple défi : réforme constitutionnelle, chute du prix du pétrole et Covid-19
Institut français des Relations internationales, April 2020

A global agreement on medical equipment and supplies to fight Covid-19
European Centre for International Political Economy, April 2020

Covid-19 and Europe-China relations
Clingendael, April 2020

The revived centrality of the G20
Bruegel, April 2020

COVID-19 is causing the collapse of oil markets: When will they recover?
Bruegel, April 2020

The economic impact of Covid-19 on the EU: From the frying pan into the fire
European Policy Centre, April 2020

Governing in times of social distancing: The effects of Covid-19 on EU decision-making
European Policy Centre, April 2020

EU trade in medical goods: Why self-sufficiency is the wrong approach
Bruegel, April 2020

How is EU cooperation on the Covid-19 crisis perceived in member states?
Centre for European Policy Studies, April 2020

We can afford more stimulus
Brookings Institution, April 2020

Coronavirus and farmworkers: Is the food supply at risk?
Council on Foreign Relations, April 2020

Bankruptcy and the coronavirus
Brookings Institution, April 2020

India: Fighting Coronavirus in an informal economy
Council on Foreign Relations, April 2020

Will the Coronavirus endanger foreign aid?
Council on Foreign Relations, April 2020

Coronavirus has exposed the United States’ own political virus
Atlantic Council, April 2020

Putin’s societal distancing: Prioritizing power in the corona pandemic
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, April 2020.

Read this briefing on ‘Coronavirus: From lock-down to de-confinement, and beyond‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Read all EPRS publications on the coronavirus outbreak

Written by Nicole Scholz,

© Csaba Deli / Shutterstock.com

The issue of organ donation and transplantation gained renewed political momentum as one of the initial health priorities of the current Croatian Presidency of the Council of the EU.

There are two types of organ donation: deceased donation and living donation. Organ transplantation has become an established worldwide practice, and is seen as one of the greatest medical advances of the 20th century. Demand for organ transplantation is increasing, but a shortage of donors has resulted in high numbers of patients on waiting lists.

Medical, legal, religious, cultural, and ethical considerations apply to organ donation and transplantation. In the EU, transplants must be carried out in a manner that shows respect for fundamental rights and for the human body, in conformity with the Council of Europe’s binding laws, and compliant with relevant EU rules. World Health Organization principles also apply.

Organ donation rates across the EU vary widely. Member States have different systems in place to seek people’s consent to donate their organs after death. In the ‘opt-in’ system, consent has to be given explicitly, while in the ‘opt-out’ system, silence is tantamount to consent. Some countries have donor and/or non-donor registries.

Responsibility for framing health policies and organising and delivering care lies primarily with the EU Member States. The EU has nevertheless addressed organ donation and transplantation through legislation, an action plan and co-funded projects, and the European Parliament has adopted own-initiative resolutions on aspects of organ donation and transplantation.

Stakeholders have submitted a joint statement on a shared vision for improving organ donation and transplantation in the EU. An evaluation of the EU’s action plan identified the need for a new, improved approach. Innovative products and procedures, such as artificially grown organs and 3D bio-printing, might lend themselves as future possibilities to reduce our reliance on organ donors.

Actual deceased organ donors 2018 (annual rate per million population)

Read the complete Briefing on ‘Organ donation and transplantation: Facts, figures and European Union action‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘Organ donation and transplantation: Facts, figures and European Union action’ on YouTube.

Written by Rachele Rossi,

© Maria Sbytova / AdobeStock

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, EU countries’ governments have taken a host of measures, including reintroducing border controls and setting limits to free movement of people within their territory, in an attempt to stem the spread of the disease.

These measures have had a pronounced impact on the EU agri-food supply chain. The EU food system is a complex web of inter-related sectors that ensure both the sustenance of EU consumers and the achievement of food security, one of the EU Treaty’s objectives. This system relies on about 10 million farms, several hundred thousand food and beverage processing companies, thousands of businesses manufacturing agricultural inputs or handling packaging, transport, storage and distribution, as well as wholesalers, markets and other retailers.

When the functioning of any one sector of the food chain is hindered, the whole chain can be disrupted. For instance, as highlighted by sectoral stakeholders and then addressed by EU-level measures, recent national restrictions have contributed to problems such as blocked transport routes, long queues at border checks for commodity transport, and shortages of seasonal farm workers who can no longer move freely from one Member State to another.

Specific schemes have been set up at EU level as a lifeline to farms and companies from the agri-food sectors that have been the hardest hit and are in greatest need of support. The European Parliament voted the first emergency measures to combat COVID-19 at an extraordinary plenary meeting on 26 March. Members of the Parliament’s Agricultural and Rural Development Committee have put forward proposals on further measures. There has also been an overhaul of EU farm policy rules as a first step to address the emergency at EU level. How these rules will evolve further depends on the concerted efforts of all parties concerned: stakeholders, the EU and national policy-makers. Unified action at EU level is also required to complete the legislative process for the adoption of the 2021-2027 long-term EU budget and future EU farm policy, discussion of which has slowed down due to the crisis.

Read the complete Briefing on ‘Protecting the EU agri-food supply chain in the face of COVID-19‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘Protecting the EU agri-food supply chain in the face of COVID-19’ on YouTube.

Written by Martin Russell,

© Stephen / Adobe Stock

The United Kingdom’s vote to leave the European Union (‘Brexit’), by referendum in June 2016, raised particular concerns in and about Northern Ireland, which had voted by 56 per cent to remain within the European Union. Principal among these concerns was the prospect of a ‘hard’ border, potentially upsetting the delicate balance between the region’s status as part of the United Kingdom and its close relationship with Ireland. There were fears that this in turn could disrupt the peace process and the progress made since the 1998 Good Friday/Belfast Agreement.

Given the UK’s insistence on leaving the EU’s customs union, the question of avoiding a hard border without introducing new divisions between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK was a particular challenge in the withdrawal negotiations. The Withdrawal Agreement eventually adopted in January 2020 envisages that the region will nominally be part of UK customs territory, but retain close ties to the EU customs union and single market regulations on manufactured and agricultural goods, with the aim of enabling unobstructed trade to continue between the two parts of the island of Ireland. Much will depend on the detailed arrangements for implementing the Agreement, to be worked out by a specialised committee of EU and UK representatives, which met for the first time on 30 April 2020.

With uncertainty as to how Northern Ireland’s rather ambiguous status under the Withdrawal Agreement will work in practice, trade and investment could see some disruption. Economic effects could also result from migration restrictions – given the large number of EU nationals working in Northern Ireland – and the loss of some EU funding. There are also political implications, with the Brexit process having brought debate on Northern Ireland’s status as part of the UK back on to the political agenda.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Northern Ireland after Brexit‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Gisela Grieger and Enrico D’Ambrogio,

© Zstock / Adobe Stock

North-east Asian countries have deep and historical economic, human and cultural connections with China, based on their geographical proximity to the latter country, and were the first to be exposed to the coronavirus contagion after its initial outbreak. They were not caught unprepared, having dealt with the SARS and the MERS epidemics in recent times.

South Korea and Taiwan, in particular, have successfully showcased a model characterised by minimal restrictions on economic activities and daily lives, where safeguarding the health of the people has not had devastating consequences for the health of the economy, as witnessed in other parts of the world. They have also showed that it is possible to effectively manage the coronavirus threat transparently, without authoritarian methods. Their models, illustrating that it is possible to implement a successful – albeit sometimes unnoticed – alternative to a liberal laissez-faire model or to a drastic lockdown, could become precious assets for public diplomacy and soft power tools.

Given the high rate of information and communications technology penetration in the region, it has been easier for the authorities to make use of big data and contact-tracing by smartphone in order to prevent the pandemic from spreading, as well as collect information on those infected. However, this approach has raised issues of privacy, especially as the details collected allow the identification of those infected and could possibly expose them to stigmatisation.

Despite the coronavirus outbreak, South Korea is a healthy democracy. It successfully held a general election on 15 April 2020, giving substance to the statement made by the European Parliament’s President, David Sassoli: ‘Democracy cannot be suspended in the face of Covid-19’.

Read the complete briefing on ‘China’s democratic neighbours and coronavirus: Protecting populations without lockdowns‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Magdalena Pasikowska-Schnass,

© zest_marina / Adobe Stock

The EU’s cultural and creative sectors (CCS) are a European Union economic and societal asset, providing an important contribution to GDP, and shaping identity and diversity.

Despite the significant contribution of the CCS to the economy and people’s wellbeing, the situation of operators and workers in the sector is often precarious and their work seasonal. The outbreak of the Covid‑19 pandemic particularly threatens the future of artists, creators and cultural operators, who are severely impacted by the enforcement of social distancing measures and the consequent postponements, cancellations or closures of events, live performances, exhibitions, museums and cultural institutions.

EU Member States reacted quickly to counterbalance the consequences of Covid-19 containment measures with support for cultural institutions and artists. At the EU level, measures have been introduced to protect the small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which predominate in CCS; the self-employed, who are very numerous among artists and in CCS; as well as those who have lost their jobs, a constant threat for those working in CCS. Sector specific measures have also been discussed to protect the most vulnerable, including performing artists. A series of surveys and mappings of different sectors are planned to help design a path towards the sector’s recovery from the confinement measures and the resulting change in audience behaviour.

The European Parliament, and its Committee on Culture and Education, call for sector-specific support measures and funds to be earmarked for those who have supported confined populations and health service professionals in particular, with their artistic output.

Read the complete briefing on ‘EU support for artists and the cultural and creative sector during the coronavirus crisis‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Alessandro D’Alfonso,

© Dmitry Guzhanin / Shutterstock.com

The European Commission is ultimately responsible for the execution of the European Union’s budget. However, the process also involves a range of other players, including Member States, to which the Commission delegates implementing tasks relating to a significant share of the budget.

Each year, the discharge procedure ensures that there is ex-post democratic oversight at political level of how the EU’s annual budget has been used. It aims to verify whether implementation was in accordance with relevant rules (compliance), including the principles of sound financial management (performance).

The decision on whether to grant discharge for the execution of the EU budget is made by the European Parliament, which acts on a non-binding recommendation by the Council, the other arm of the EU budgetary authority. Another key institution is the European Court of Auditors, the EU’s independent external auditor, whose reports are a fundamental part of the procedure.

The discharge procedure has proved to be a powerful tool, which has had an impact on the evolution of the EU’s budgetary system, while helping to increase the Parliament’s political leverage. Recent years have shown a trend towards a greater focus on results and performance, strongly supported and promoted by the European Parliament. For example, the 2018 version of the EU’s Financial Regulation simplified the rules for budgetary implementation and introduced the ‘single audit’ approach to shared management. Another noteworthy issue is the question of how to ensure EU-level democratic scrutiny of financial tools set up to respond to crises either outside the EU’s institutional framework (e.g. the European Stability Mechanism) or at least partially outside the EU budget (e.g. EU trust funds).

This Briefing updates a previous edition of April 2016.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Discharge procedure for the EU Budget: Political scrutiny of budgetary implementation‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.