European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

Written by Irina Popescu (1st edition),

© isaac74 / Fotolia

On 8 March 2018, the European Commission proposed a multiannual plan for the western Mediterranean fisheries exploiting several stocks of fish and crustaceans living close to the sea bottom (i.e. ‘demersal fisheries’). Most of these stocks have long been overfished and are now in an alarming state. The proposed plan aims to reverse this trend and ensure that fishing activities are environmentally sustainable and capable of securing economic and social benefits. The plan concerns fishing fleets from Italy, Spain and France, totalling almost 10 900 vessels.

The proposal would introduce a fishing-effort regime for all trawlers operating in the region, and reduce fishing activities in the first year of application, in line with the scientific advice. In addition, it would restrict trawlers from operating in waters shallower than 100 m for three months each year, to reserve the coastal zone for more selective fishing gear. The plan would also establish regional cooperation among the Member States concerned, with a view to developing provisions on the obligation to land all catches and on the conservation of resources through technical measures.

Versions

• June 2018: ‘Multiannual plan for demersal fisheries in the western Mediterranean‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a multi-annual plan for the fisheries exploiting demersal stocks in the western Mediterranean Sea Committee responsible: Fisheries (PECH) COM(2018) 115
8.3.2018 Rapporteur: Clara Eugenia Aguilera García (S&D, Spain) 2018/0050(COD) Shadow rapporteurs:

 

  Carlos Iturgaiz (EPP, Spain)
Ruža Tomašić (ECR, Croatia)
Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE, Spain)
João Ferreira (GUE/NGL, Portugal)
Marco Affronte (Greens/EFA, Italy)
Rosa D’Amato (EFDD, Italy) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Publication of draft report

 

Landings of the main demersal species exploited in the western Mediterranean Sea in 2014 by value (million €)

Written by Magdalena Sapala and Nurseli Ulvieva,

Following the publication of the study on ‘Performance budgeting: A means to improve EU spending‘, an EPRS roundtable discussion was held in the European Parliament library on 5 June 2018. Speakers, including Martina DLABAJOVÁ (ALDE, Czech Republic, Vice-President of EP Committee on Budgetary Control), Maria Rosa ALDEA BUSQUETS (Deputy Director-General, DG Budget, European Commission), Joël COSTANTZER (Principal Auditor, Financing and Administering the Union, European Court of Auditors) and Magdalena SAPAŁA (Policy Analyst, Budgetary Policies Unit, EPRS), contributed to the lively discussion. EPRS Director Etienne BASSOT delivered a welcoming speech, while the event was moderated by Fabia JONES, acting head of the EPRS Budgetary Policies Unit.

Magdalena SAPAŁA – (Policy Analyst, Budgetary Policies Unit, EPRS)

The roundtable discussion was opened by Magdalena SAPAŁA, an author of the study on performance budgeting, who defined performance budgeting and the main challenges to its implementation. Performance budgeting is a way of allocating resources where the goals can be best achieved, as well as a way of managing public finances based on three main elements: budget, information on performance, and decisions on learning from results. However, highlighting that challenges might be attributed to all three elements of performance budgeting, SAPAŁA noted that a crucial point in performance budgeting is the link between information on performance and decision-making process. Moreover, effective and successful implementation of the method requires a change in thinking about public budgets, based on performance culture and performance ethos.

Martina DLABAJOVÁ (ALDE, Czech Republic)

The next panellist, Martina DLABAJOVÁ focused on her experience of dealing with the topic as a member of the Committee on Budgetary Control (CONT) of the European Parliament and the Rapporteur in the discharge procedure for the EU general budget 2014. DLABAJOVÁ pointed out the need to change thinking around budgetary control, from focusing on errors and mistakes to results, performance, and lessons learned. DLABAJOVÁ noted ‘the biggest failure is that we are very good in highlighting errors, mistakes and frauds that form less than 5 % of the EU budget, instead of focusing on promoting the successful stories that form 95 % of the Union’s tax payers contributions’. She continued by adding that performance and results make it easier for citizens and stakeholders to understand the objectives and impacts of the EU budget. Informing citizens of EU achievements is crucial, as the EU future and its budget are based solely on their trust.

Maria Rosa ALDEA BUSQUETS (Deputy Director-General, DG Budget, European Commission)

The floor was then taken by Maria Rosa ALDEA BUSQUETS, who presented the Budget Focused on Results Initiative and emphasised the European Commission’s commitment to implementing performance budgeting. Continuing with actions taken, ALDEA BUSQUETS pointed out the improved reporting with the Integrated Financial Reporting Package (including the Annual Management and Performance Report), simplification of the Commission’s financial rules, and the execution of a Spending Review. ALDEA BUSQUETS also emphasised that the proposal for the next MFF has an increased focus on EU added value and includes further measures to improve the performance framework such as: drastically reducing the number of ‘corporate’ indicators embedded in the spending programmes, decreasing the number of programmes, and creating more flexibility. However, she also noted that creating a full performance culture is a time-consuming process. Furthermore, she highlighted that many challenges remain in this process, specifically for the EU budget with regards to shared management with Member States, and called for the support of the Parliament, Council, Court of Auditors, as well as other stakeholders in the implementation of performance budgeting.

Joël COSTANTZER – (Principal Auditor, Financing and Administering the Union, European Court of Auditors)

The final speaker, Joël COSTANTZER presented the Court of Auditor’s view on the EU performance framework. He highlighted the Court’s overall support for all initiatives that make the EU more performance-oriented and gave examples of the Court’s special reports published recently and focused on the different aspects of performance and results. COSTANTZER described some limitations to implementation of the method to the EU budget, namely the MFF’s limited flexibility as compared to national budgets, the coexistence of different performance frameworks, the use of a large number of sometimes non-relevant objectives and indicators by the Commission. He added that, for the EU, the discussion on the new MFF is a major opportunity to improve implementation of performance budgeting. Therefore, although the negotiations on the 2021-2027 MFF are still in the initial phase, the Court has already noted the positive changes included in the Commission’s proposal, in particular the strong focus on the European added value and performance. In the future, the Court of Auditors will analyse the proposal in detail and the actual steps taken to improve performance orientation of the EU budget.

The roundtable discussion was followed by a lively Q&A session.

Click to view slideshow.

world day against child labour

The International Labour Organization (ILO) introduced the World Day Against Child Labour in 2002 as part of its efforts to eradicate this unacceptable phenomenon. The day is observed each year on 12 June, and this year the focus will be on how to achieve the international commitments to end all forms of child labour by 2025 and improve health and safety for young people in employment. It is also an opportunity to consider what measures have been taken at international and EU level to prevent child labour, and with what success.

Child labour

The UN defines child labour as work performed by children who are under the minimum age legally specified for that kind of work, or work that is considered unacceptable for children and prohibited because of its detrimental nature or conditions. Not all work performed by children is considered child labour. Forms that do not interfere with childhood and schooling, are beneficial to a child’s personal and social development and provide useful experience and skills are permitted under international standards.

Worst forms of child labour: The gravest concern within the scope of child labour, these forms of work are prohibited under ILO Convention No. 182 for any person below the age of 18 and must be eliminated as a matter of urgency. They include: slavery and other forms of forced labour; involvement of children in commercial sexual exploitation and illicit activities; and work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm children’s health, safety or morals (Article 3).

Global trends. The ILO’s latest global estimates show that of the 218 million children in employment in 2016, 152 million were victims of child labour – and of these, nearly half (73 million) were engaged in its worst forms, including hazardous work endangering their safety or health. Although this represents a significant reduction from the estimated 246 million children in child labour in 2000, progress slowed considerably between 2012 and 2016, particularly for children under the age of 12 and amongst girls. Africa remains the region with highest rate of child labour (19.6 %), compared with between 3 % and 7 % in other regions. Globally, child labour is concentrated in agriculture (71%), services (17%) and industry (12%). Although the phenomenon of child labour is more commonly associated with non-EU countries, in spite of a lack of reliable comprehensive statistical sources, there is evidence that child labour persists in the EU and Europe as well.

Root causes. It is believed that child labour is commonly driven by family and community poverty paired with lack of access to decent work for adults and youth (income insecurity, inadequate wages), weak social protection and lack of free, good quality, public education and other public services.

Future goals. The ILO’s initial goal was to eliminate the worst forms of child labour by 2016. However, despite its efforts, supported by increasing commitment from countries all over the world, and notable progress, that goal has still to be achieved. The UN Sustainable Development Goals, and Goal 8 in particular, set the targets of eliminating all forms of child labour by 2025 and ensuring safe and secure working environments for all workers by 2030. The ILO has highlighted the large number of adolescents aged between 15 and 17 involved in hazardous work and connections between ensuring decent work for young people and eliminating child labour. This will be also be the focus for the ILO campaign and European Commission event in 2018.

Protecting children from child labour in conflicts and disasters. More than 1.5 billion people live in areas affected by conflict, violence and fragility. It is estimated that one in ten of the world’s children live in conflict-affected areas, whilst half of the world’s refugees are children. Conflicts and crisis deprive millions of children of their basic human rights and increase the number of children at risk of exploitation including child labour, human trafficking and sexual abuse. In the recent migration flows to Europe, children, including unaccompanied minors, have represented a significant proportion of arrivals and asylum seekers, presenting the European Union’s commitment to eradicate child labour with even greater challenges. International legal framework for combating child labour

Since its establishment in 1919, the ILO has been committed to the abolition of child labour as one of its main goals. It has played a crucial role in raising awareness of the importance of eliminating child labour, as well as in establishing widely recognised standards. Three major international conventions establish the legal framework for national action against child labour:

ILO Convention No 138 on the minimum age for admission to employment and work, adopted in 1973, has been ratified by 169 countries, including all European Union (EU) Member States. It is a crucial document that lays down the standards for minimum age for employment, calling on the parties to set the minimum age for employment at 15 (Article 2.3) or at least 18 for hazardous work (Article 3.1). It also emphasises the importance of taking all necessary steps to ensure the effective abolition of child labour.

ILO Convention No 182 on the worst forms of child labour, adopted in 1999, has been ratified by 180 countries, including all EU Member States, and is known to have been the fastest ratification in the history of the ILO. It calls on members to ensure immediate and effective measures to secure the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child labour as a matter of urgency (Article 1).

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) adopted in 1989, has been ratified by 196 countries, including all EU Member States. In the framework of prohibiting child labour, the CRC confers upon children the right to be protected from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child’s education, or to be harmful to the child’s health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development (Article 32). Although it does not specify a minimum age for employment, it urges parties to stipulate one as well as to regulate hours and conditions of employment and provide penalties and sanctions.

EU action to combat child labour

The EU’s strong commitment to eliminating child labour is reflected in Article 32 of the 2012 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR), which prohibits the employment of children and stipulates that the minimum age of employment may not be lower than the minimum school-leaving age. The main legal instrument prohibiting child labour in the EU is Council Directive 94/33/EC. It allows Member States to set the minimum age for employment below the minimum school-leaving age only exceptionally, in Article 4.2. No major difficulties have been encountered with the transposition of the directive into national law; most Member States already had legislation providing for the prohibition of child labour prior to the adoption of the directive.

There is also an external dimension to the fight against child labour, and to the EU’s full commitment to its eradication. Building upon a document from 2010, the Commission Staff Working Document, Trade and Worst Forms of Child Labour, SWD(2013) 173 provides the framework for understanding the complexity of the issue, emphasising the link between trade and child labour, and pointing out the positive impact of economic growth on the elimination of the worst forms of child labour. More recently, a Commission Staff Working Document, SWD(2017) 147, addresses child labour in the context of promoting sustainable garment value chains through EU development action. The Council of the EU has, meanwhile, reaffirmed its strong commitment to eliminating child labour, particularly its worst forms, and stressed the importance of eradicating the recruitment and use of children in armed conflict, including child soldiers.

The European Parliament has addressed the issue of child labour and its various forms within and outside the EU in a number of resolutions, condemning it and calling for measures that would facilitate its elimination. For example, in 2010, Parliament called for all future trade agreements to provide for a ban on the exploitation of child labour. Subsequent resolutions, on the EC-Uzbekistan partnership and cooperation agreement (2011) and on child labour in the cocoa sector (2012) repeated that call, with specific reference to forced child labour, while the 2013 resolution on the global cotton value chain referred to a traceability mechanism for goods produced through child or forced labour. More recently a Parliament resolution on the EU flagship initiative on the garment sector (2017) calls on the Commission to propose binding legislation on due diligence obligations for supply chains in the sector including standards for the elimination of forced and child labour.

Written by Silvia Kotanidis and Ralf Drachenberg,

Participants in Future of Europe debates in the European Parliament, 2018

Against the background of the many challenges which the European Union has faced in recent years, the European Parliament has taken the lead in launching and hosting a series of high-profile debates on the Future of Europe, intended to run for the whole of 2018. While the Heads of State or Government of countries holding the rotating presidency of the Council – this year, Boyko Borissov of Bulgaria and Sebastian Kurz of Austria – routinely debate with MEPs in plenary, the leaders of other EU Member States are now able to set out publicly their vision for Europe’s future in a dialogue with the only directly elected European institution, during its plenary sittings.

This process is all the more important at a time when the EU’s Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for the next seven years is being discussed: the choices surrounding the MFF and the direction in which the EU decides to develop are intrinsically linked.

So far, at the invitation of its President, Antonio Tajani, the European Parliament has hosted the leaders of six Member States in the context of these ‘Future of Europe’ debates, welcoming the prime ministers of Ireland (Taoiseach), Leo Varadkar; Croatia, Andrej Plenković; and Portugal, António Costa; the President of France, Emmanuel Macron; and the prime ministers of Belgium, Charles Michel; and Luxembourg, Xavier Bettel.

This Briefing provides an overview of where the Future of Europe debate stands in a number of key policy areas, such as economic and monetary union (EMU), the EU’s social dimension, migration policy, security and defence, and broader institutional issues. It takes stock of the views expressed by those EU Heads of State or Government who have intervened in the debate so far, on how these areas might develop in the future.

Read this briefing on ‘Future of Europe debates: Parliament hosts Heads of State or Government‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Overview of topics addressed by each Head of State or Government

With European elections coming up in May 2019, you probably want to know how the European Union impacts your daily life, before you think about voting. In the latest in a series of posts on what Europe does for you, your family, your business and your wellbeing, we look at what Europe does for Bird watchers.

Like many of us, you may derive great pleasure and inspiration from watching wild birds and listening to their song. Birds are also an essential element of our ecosystems, which provide us with clean water, pure air, food, medicines and important raw materials.

For these reasons, the European Union protects the 500 wild bird species naturally present in Europe. Through a law adopted in 1979 (the oldest EU law on the environment), the European Union protects bird species in two ways. On the hand, it created protected areas to maintain habitats for 194 species that are particularly threatened (these nature protected areas are part of the wider Natura 2000 network of wild spaces). On the other hand, it bans most activities that directly threaten wild birds, like killing them deliberately, capturing or trading them.

© Jesus / Fotolia

BirdLife, an international non-governmental organisation (NGO) developed, with European Union financial support, a system to collect information on threats to and plans for conservation of about 50 bird species. Projects protecting 54 bird species also have priority access to European funds under the LIFE programme.

You may have noticed that numbers of common farmland birds in Europe, such as sparrows and swallows, have fallen recently. However, EU action has helped to protect Europe’s most threatened birds from further decline. One example is the Spanish Imperial Eagle (Aquila Adalberti), whose population has recovered from 50 pairs in 1974 to about 150-160 pairs today.

Further information

• EPRS publication on ‘Safeguarding biological diversity: EU policy and international agreements’ http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_IDA(2016)582020
• European Commission’s Directorate General for the environment website, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature

With European elections coming up in May 2019, you probably want to know how the European Union impacts your daily life, before you think about voting. In the latest in a series of posts on what Europe does for you, your family, your business and your wellbeing, we look at what Europe does for young people not in education, employment or training (NEETS).

Many Europeans aged between 15 and 24 years are likely to have experienced difficulties in finding a job and becoming independent, largely due to the 2008 economic and financial crisis. In 2015, 12 % of young Europeans (6.6 million individuals) were not in work, education or training – a social phenomenon known as the NEETs (young people who are ‘not in education, employment or training’).

© Kar Tr / Fotolia

In response to the poor outlook for young people, all EU countries committed to implement a Youth Guarantee in April 2013. The Guarantee promises a good quality offer of employment, further education, an apprenticeship or traineeship to all young people under the age of 25 years, within a period of four months of becoming unemployed or leaving formal education. To help European countries to fulfil this commitment, the EU is spending €6.4 billion on the Youth Employment Initiative (2014-2020), with an extra €1.2 billion in 2017.

Up to now, much effort has been made to reintegrate young people in short term unemployment. European countries also frequently focus on helping young people with disabilities or illnesses. Other strategies that foster equality between young Europeans and boosting female employability include assisting young people who are NEET due to family responsibilities, enhancing young people’s skill sets (basic or digital skills, entrepreneurship), and matching their skills to job market needs.

Further information

• EPRS publication on NEETs: who are they? Being young and not in employment, education or training today
• Eurostat publication on Statistics on young people neither in employment nor in education or training
• Eurofound publication on Exploring the diversity of NEETs

With European elections coming up in May 2019, you probably want to know how the European Union impacts your daily life, before you think about voting. In the latest in a series of posts on what Europe does for you, your family, your business and your wellbeing, we look at what Europe does for undergraduate students.

If you are studying your first degree or are considering in enrolling for one, you may think about going abroad for a part of those studies. In that case, your university’s international office will have information about the possibility of an Erasmus exchange. As an Erasmus student, you do not have to pay registration or tuition fees to your host university, your studies count for your degree, and you receive an EU grant.

You should also know that as an EU citizen, you are entitled to study in any other EU country under the same conditions as nationals. The Your Europe website has information on admissions, fees, financial help, or working while studying to help you plan for your degree abroad.

© kasto / Fotolia

However, the recognition of academic diplomas in different EU countries is not yet automatic. By supporting the development of the European higher education area, the EU is promoting a process that gradually makes this simpler. In the meantime, centres exist in all EU countries that assess the comparability of diplomas. Once you obtain your degree you can also ask your university for a Diploma Supplement to ease recognition.

One of the EU’s targets is for over 40 % of young people to complete higher education by 2020. To this end, the EU brings together policy-makers from the Member States to exchange experiences on updating higher education in terms of attractiveness, accessibility and relevance to contemporary realities. The EU also ensures that graduates receive a quality job offer or an opportunity to further their studies by means of its Youth Guarantee programme.

Further information

• Erasmus+, http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/
• Your Europe: Education & Youth: University, https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/education/university/index_en.htm
• The Bologna Process and the European Higher Education Area, http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/higher-education/bologna-process_en
• Enic-naric.net, http://www.enic-naric.net/
• Diploma Supplement, http://europass.cedefop.europa.eu/documents/european-skills-passport/diploma-supplement
• Attainment : raising graduate numbers, http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/higher-education/attainment_en
• Working Group on the Modernisation of Higher Education, https://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/strategic-framework/expert-groups/modernisation-higher-education_en
• Youth Guarantee, http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1079

With European elections coming up in May 2019, you probably want to know how the European Union impacts your daily life, before you think about voting. In the latest in a series of posts on what Europe does for you, your family, your business and your wellbeing, we look at what Europe does for secondary school students.

How many years young people spend in school, the subjects they study, the exams they take – all of this varies from country to country, and sometimes even from region to region. In some countries, pupils wear school uniforms while in others, they don’t; in some, everyone has the same basic education, while in others, there’s a choice between grammar schools and vocational schools. There can be no question of replacing this diversity with a standardised European school system – after all, every country has its own traditions.

Having said that, there are many challenges that schools from different parts of Europe share. The EU is bringing together teachers and other people involved in education to discuss how to deal with problems like pupils dropping out of school early, or ensuring that school leavers are equipped with the right skills to find work. For example, the EU is supporting initiatives to teach programming skills in schools.

© pressmaster / Fotolia

Most people have heard of Erasmus, the EU’s successful university exchange programme. The programme also offers exchanges for secondary school pupils lasting up to a year. In 2016 around 100 000 took part – a relatively small number compared to the EU’s 40 million secondary pupils, but a growing one. And, for those who don’t take part in an exchange, the EU has set up websites such as eTwinning enabling schools from different countries to organise joint projects; these can be a great opportunity for teenagers from all over Europe to get to know one another by working together on joint tasks.

Further information

• E twinning portal 1, https://www.etwinning.net/en/pub/index.htm
• Erasmus+ report, https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/resources/documents/erasmus-annual-report-2016_en
• Coding – the 21st century skill: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/coding-21st-century-skill

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© lermont51 / Fotolia

In June, the Heads of State or Government of the countries sharing the euro currency will discuss ways to improve the functioning of the euro area. French President Emmanuel Macron has proposed an ambitious reform plan, but Germany, the euro area’s economic powerhouse, is more cautious. Despite continued growth, after years of stagnation, the euro area needs better governance to meet future challenges, economic analysts say. They add that recent political developments in Italy may complicate the drive for reform, as could unstable political situations elsewhere.

This note brings together commentaries, analyses and studies by major international think tanks and research institutes on challenges facing the euro area and related issues. Earlier publications on the topic can be found in a previous edition of ‘What Think Tanks are Thinking’ published in December 2017.

Why Italy will confront the EU, but stay in the euro
Centre for European Reform, June 2018

Italy’s hazardous new experiment: Genetically modified populism
Brookings Institution, June 2018

The EU must realize that populism is a symptom of real policy failure
Chatham House, May 2018

How to exit the euro in a nutshell ‘Il Piano Savona’
Centre for European Policy Studies, June 2018

Mattarella’s line in the sand
Bruegel, June 2018

Italy heads for confrontation with itself, financial markets, and Europe
Peterson Institute for International Economics, May 2018

Quit kicking the can down the road: A Spanish view of EMU reforms
Real Instituto Elcano, May 2018

Turmoil in euro area spreads as Rajoy’s government is ousted in Spain
Atlantic Council, May 2018

Italy is too big to fail
Atlantic Council, May 2018

Does the euro area need a safe or a diversified asset?
Centre for European Policy Studies, May 2018

Are SBBS really the safe asset the euro area is looking for?
Bruegel, May 2018

Capital position of banks in the EMU: An analysis of Banking Union scenarios
Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, May 2018

Fiscal rules and the role of the Commission
Bruegel, May 2018

Tackling non-performing loans in the euro area
Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft, May 2018

Completing Europe’s Banking Union means breaking the bank-sovereign vicious circle
Peterson Institute for International Economics, May 2018

EFN report: Economic outlook for the euro area in 2018 and 2019
Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, April 2018

Macron, Merkel and the new European sovereignties
Real Instituto Elcano, April 2018

Convergence in the European Union: Inside and outside the euro
Centre for European Policy Studies, April 2018

Should Bulgaria join the euro now?
Jacques Delors Institut Berlin, April 2018

Une finance au service du développement de long terme en Europe
Confrontations Europe, April 2018

Quelles perspectives pour renforcer la zone euro?
Confrontations Europe, April 2018

The European ETF market: What can be done better?
Centre for European Policy Studies, April 2018

Making a reality of Europe’s capital markets union
Bruegel, April 2018

State contingent debt as insurance for euro-area sovereigns
Bruegel, April 2018

Economic recovery and inflation
Center for Social and Economic Research, April 2018

Reforming the European Monetary Union: The challenge of reconciling risk sharing with market discipline
Istituto Affari Internazionali, April 2018

How to solve the Greek debt problem
Peterson Institute for International Economics, April 2018

Debt mutualisation, inflation and populism in the euro zone
Real Instituto Elcano, April 2018

Market discipline and liquidity key issues in the EMU reform
Research Institute of the Finnish Economy, April 2018

The fallacy of fiscal discipline
LUISS School of European Political Economy, April 2018

No escape from politics: Four tests for a successful fiscal instrument in the euro area
Notre Europe, Bertelsmann Stiftung, March 2018

Cash outflows in crisis scenarios: Do liquidity requirements and reporting obligations give the SRB sufficient time to react?
Bruegel, March 2018

Domestic banks as lightning rods? Home bias during the euro zone crisis
Centre for European Policy Studies, March 2018

Is the bank-sovereign link truly severed?
College of Europe, March 2018

The search for a euro area safe asset
Peterson Institute for International Economics, March 2018

Enhancing credibility and commitment to fiscal rules
Center for Social and Economic Research, March 2018

The new global economic governance: Can Europe help win the peace?
LUISS School of European Political Economy, March 2018

Macron’s plans for the euro
Centre for European Reform, February 2018

The missing third leg of the euro architecture: National wage negotiations
Peterson Institute for International Economics, February 2018

ECB interventions in distressed sovereign debt markets: The case of Greek bonds
Institut für Weltwirtschaft Kiel, February 2018

The effects of unconventional monetary policy in the euro area
Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, February 2018

The euro paradox: Explaining the resilience of the single currency
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, January 2018

Tales from a crisis: Diverging narratives of the euro area
Bruegel, February 2018

Some unpleasant euro arithmetic
Centre d’études prospectives et d’informations internationales, January 2018

Bank liquidation in the European Union: Clarification needed
Bruegel, January 2018

Risk reduction through Europe’s distressed debt market
Bruegel, January 2018

Reconciling risk sharing with market discipline: A constructive approach to euro area reform
Centre for Economic Policy Research, January 2018

Reconciling risk sharing with market discipline
LUISS School of European Political Economy, January 2018

Oil price shocks, monetary policy and current account imbalances within a currency union
Centre for European Policy Studies, January 2018

Low interest rate environment amplifies negative effects of austerity policy
Deutsche Institut für Entwicklungspolitik, January 2018

Read this briefing on ‘Challenges for the euro area‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Clare Ferguson,

European Union, EP

In the latest in a series of discussions on the future of Europe, a highlight of Parliament’s agenda for June is the debate planned for Wednesday morning with the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Mark Rutte. A number of important statements are expected; on Tuesday afternoon from the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini, on the Iran nuclear agreement; from the Council and Commission on the independence of the judiciary in Poland on Wednesday, and on the preparation for the European Council meeting of 28 and 29 June 2018 on Tuesday morning, where the negotiations on the United Kingdom’s withdrawal are likely to be discussed.

Crucially, for Parliament, the number of Members of the European Parliament is limited to 751 under the Lisbon Treaty. The United Kingdom withdrawal means the seats left vacant by British Members must be redistributed, a situation complicated by the withdrawal date falling just before the next European elections. The composition of the European Parliament will therefore change after ‘Brexit’, providing an opportunity for Parliament to correct the current flawed application of the degressive proportionality principle, (minimum of 6 seats per Member State, maximum 96; with each Member elected in more populous states representing more electors than those elected in less populous states, and vice versa), without reopening the Treaties. Parliament will vote on Wednesday on whether to consent to a European Council decision on a partial redistribution of seats for the next term, involving no loss of seats for any Member State, reserving 46 seats for future enlargements, and reducing the overall number of Members to 705. The decision is based on a proposal made by Parliament following a vote in the February plenary session.

On Tuesday afternoon Parliament will consider whether further macro-financial assistance to Ukraine will continue to be paid, in view of the lack of progress on fighting corruption in the country. Despite the priority accorded to Ukraine under the Eastern Partnership, the EU has already cancelled assistance payments due in the previous programme, due to the country’s failure to meet the conditions regarding governance and economic reforms. Parliament and Council positions to date indicate that any further assistance will be conditional on progress in the fight against corruption, with a proposed Memorandum of Understanding to be signed covering institutional and administrative capacities, including an anti-corruption court. An oral question addressing the issue of corruption closer to home is scheduled for Thursday morning.

Turning to transport, Europe remains the safest air space in the world and the EU intends to ensure it stays that way. On Monday evening, Parliament will discuss a provisional agreement on common rules in the field of civil aviation. Parliament’s focus in the proposals has been on adapting the rules to heavier air traffic and emerging technologies in aviation, such as drones. The new rules have already been approved by the Committee on Transport and Tourism, and are ready for formal adoption during this month’s session, with debate scheduled for Monday evening. Free movement of goods in the EU is also essential to the success of the internal market. However, the large-scale use of heavy-duty vehicles in transport has consequences for our environment, as they emit around a quarter of all road transport CO2. Parliament proposals extend EU targets to reduce these emissions, to encompass new administrative fines on manufacturers who fail to comply, and introduce new on-road verification tests. On Monday evening, Parliament will consider the final agreed text on monitoring and reporting of CO2 emissions and fuel consumption of heavy-duty vehicles that seeks to stimulate market uptake of cleaner, fuel-efficient, heavy-duty vehicles.

A proposal to amend and simplify the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR), which deals with the regulation of OTC derivatives in the EU, will be debated on Monday evening. The 2017 Commission proposal covers issues with the clearing obligation, reporting requirements, risk-mitigation techniques and trade repositories in the ‘over-the-counter’ (OTC) derivatives market. Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is proposing further amendments that would boost transparency, compliance with reporting requirements, and access to clearing, including the principle that clearing services be provided under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (‘FRAND’) commercial terms.

On Wednesday evening, Parliament will consider a compromise text on a proposed directive introducing a proportionality test for new national regulations for professions, which affect employment in areas such as medicine and architecture. Public concern has been expressed regarding the inconsistent application of proportionality principles and a lack of transparency in the access to such professions, which is decided by Member States individually. Parliament’s Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection obtained a compromise between addressing unnecessary national requirements and allowing a specific status for healthcare services, and Council’s desire to limit obligations regarding the transparency of the national regulatory process.

EU citizens have a huge range of cultural heritage sites, museums, exhibitions, films, and live performances to choose from, and digital access to cultural services makes it even easier to get a ‘culture fix’. However, participation in cultural activities remains low. While the EU offers support for Member States in promoting cultural life, on Wednesday evening, Parliament will discuss a report on the barriers to accessing culture in the EU, which include public funding levels, access, and the role of education.

Tuesday afternoon’s statement by the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy presenting the annual report on Human Rights and Democracy in the World 2017 and the EU’s policy on the matter is followed on Thursday with debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Russia, Bahrain and on the situation of Rohingya refugees.

A list of all material prepared for this Plenary Session: Common rules in the field of civil aviation (available in DE – EN – ES – FR – IT – PL) Monitoring and reporting of CO2 emissions and fuel consumption of heavy duty vehicles (available in DE – EN – ES – FR – IT – PL) Proportionality test for new national regulations for professions (available in DE – EN – ES – FR – IT – PL) Further macro-financial assistance to Ukraine (available in DE – EN – ES – FR – IT – PL) Regulation of OTC derivatives in the EU (available in DE – EN – ES – FR – IT – PL) Barriers to accessing culture (available in DE – EN – ES – FR – IT – PL) Composition of the European Parliament (available in EN)

Written by Elena Lazarou,

On 8 and 9 June 2018, the leaders of the G7 will meet for the 44th G7 Summit in Charlevoix, Quebec, for the annual summit of the informal grouping of seven of the world’s major advanced economies. The summit takes place amidst growing tensions between the US and other G7 countries over security and multilateralism.

Background

© Rawf8 / Fotolia

The Group of Seven (G7) is an international forum of the seven leading industrialised nations (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States, as well as the European Union). Decisions within the G7 are made on the basis of consensus. The outcomes of summits are not legally binding, but compliance is high and their impact is substantial, as the G7 members represent a significant share of global gross domestic product (GDP) and global influence. The commitments from summits are implemented by means of measures carried out by the individual member countries, and through their respective relations with other countries and influence in multilateral organisations. Compliance within the G7 is particularly high in regard to agreements on international trade and energy. The summit communiqué is politically binding on all G7 members.

As the G7 does not have a permanent secretariat, the annual summit is organised by the G7 country which holds the rotating presidency for that year. The presidency is currently held by Canada, to be followed by France in 2019. Traditionally, the presidency country also determines the agenda of the summit, which includes a mix of fixed topics (discussed each time), such as the global economic climate, foreign and security policy, and current topics for which a coordinated G7 approach appears particularly appropriate or urgent. Preparatory and follow-up work, including the preparation of the final declarations which contain the key outcomes of each summit, is carried out by the governments’ chief negotiators, known as sherpas.

The G7 has developed a network of supporting ministerial meetings, which allow ministers to meet regularly to continue and prepare the work set out at each summit. G7 ministers and officials also meet on an ad hoc basis to deal with pressing issues, such as terrorism. From time to time, the leaders also create task forces or working groups to focus on specific issues of concern. The 2018 Canadian Presidency has identified five themes, namely: investing in growth that works for everyone; preparing for jobs of the future; advancing gender equality and women’s empowerment; working together on climate change, oceans and clean energy; and building a more peaceful and secure world.

The 2017 summit was held in Taormina, Italy, with outcomes in the areas of foreign policy, the global economy, trade, gender equality, human mobility, food security and nutrition, climate and energy, Africa and health as well as skills and labour. At the summit, the leaders also issued a statement on the fight against terrorism and violent extremism, which among other things called for closer cooperation among border control agencies, targeting terrorist financing as well as fighting terrorism on the internet.

Themes for the 2018 summit

The priorities set by the Canadian Presidency focus on five themes, namely:

1. Investing in growth that works for everyone, which includes the state of the economy, fiscal and monetary policy, tax, trade, investment and infrastructure.
2. Preparing for jobs of the future, which includes issues such as generating good jobs for all, including youth, and redesigning education to foster innovation, creativity and entrepreneurship in a digital age.
3. Advancing gender equality and women’s empowerment, by ‘ensuring that gender equality and gender-based analysis are integrated across all themes, activities and outcomes of Canada’s G7 Presidency’.
4. Working together on climate change, oceans and clean energy, which includes controlling climate change as a current compelling threat, protecting the natural environment, enhancing the environment and the economy together through clean technology and in other ways, and protecting the oceans from plastic and other pollutants.
5. Building a more peaceful and secure world, by addressing threats ranging from the use of chemical weapons in Europe and Syria, nuclear and missile proliferation in North Korea, regional security risks in Ukraine and the Baltic States, the Middle East and North Africa, Venezuela, and Asia, to terrorism, crime and corruption, and violations of democracy and human rights throughout the world, including via the internet.

Security and multilateralism at the centre: the G6 vs the US?

According to an analysis by the G7 Research Group, expectations regarding the success of the summit vary. However, most agree that, given the current global geopolitical climate, security will form a major part of the summit’s concerns. Since the 2017 Taormina Summit, G7 leaders have issued key statements on North Korea and Syria. Following the presidential elections in Venezuela in May 2018, the G7 issued a statement rejecting the electoral process and denouncing its result, namely the re-election of Nicolas Maduro. Yet, there are reasonable expectations that the withdrawal of the US from the Iran Nuclear Agreement (often referred to as JCPOA, for Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) will constitute a topic for disagreement. All of the other G7 members regret the US decision and support the implementation of the agreement. Apart from the EU, which has committed to uphold the deal in spite of the US withdrawal, both the Japanese and Canadian governments have expressed their support for the JCPOA as recently as early May 2018.

The G7 Summit also comes at a time of heightened tension between the USA and its G7 partners, following US President Donald Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on imports of steel and aluminium from some of its closest partners, including the EU and Canada. Several analyses posit that the issue of tariffs, alongside disagreement over other multilateral deals such as the JCPOA and the Paris Climate Agreement, will see a rift between the US and the remaining G7 parties, jeopardising the chances of a productive summit with constructive conclusions. G7 members, including the EU and Canada, are already considering retaliatory tariffs; following the meeting of G7 finance ministers in early June, the Canadian Finance Minister issued a statement expressing the ‘concern and disappointment’ of the other six members of the G7 over the US trade actions.

The G7 was formed in 1975. Since then, the heads of state or government of the seven have convened annual meetings to discuss key global issues. There are no formal criteria for membership, but participants are all highly developed liberal democracies. Its members are all committed to the shared values of peace and security, freedom and human rights, democracy and the rule of law, prosperity and sustainable development. The group deals with such issues as global economic outlook and macroeconomic management, international trade, energy, climate change, and relations with developing countries. Recently, the summit agenda has broadened considerably to include a host of political-security issues. The original group (without Canada, which joined in 1976) held its first summit in Rambouillet, France, in November 1975. As of 1994, the G7 began to meet with Russia at each summit in an outfit referred to as the Political Eight (P8) and, in 1998, Russia joined the G7 to form the G8. In March 2014, the G7 called for the G8 format to be suspended in response to Russia’s conduct vis-à-vis Ukraine, which was considered to be inconsistent with the group’s ‘shared beliefs and responsibilities’. In 2017, the G7 represented approximately 10.3 % of the global population and 32.2 % of the world’s GDP, as well as providing close to 70 % of all official development assistance (ODA).

The EU in the G7

The European Community (later EU) became a full participant of the G7 in 1981. It takes part in discussions on all topics and sessions, but does not hold the presidency or host summits. The EU G7/G20 Sherpa (currently Piotr Serafin) informs the EU Member States about the state of preparation for summits, which are attended by the Presidents of the Commission and of the European Council.

The President of the European Parliament attends the G7 speakers’ meeting, held annually by the G7 Presidency. In 2017, EP President Antonio Tajani participated in the 15th G7 speakers meeting, where he called for global responses to terrorism and to nuclear threats.

Read this At a glance on ‘The 2018 G7 Summit: Issues to watch‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Mihalis Kritikos,

© Maksim Kabakou / Shutterstock.com

Εxploring the relationship between law, technological innovation and regulatory governance has always been a challenging task for policy-makers. Technologies are often seen as ordinary objects of formal law that can fit into traditional doctrinal classification. But what if technologies questioned and challenged the traditional boundaries of legal thought? Some scholars even argue that technology is law, given that the employment of technology for control purposes in regulation provides opportunities to directly or indirectly shape human behaviour in legal terms. However, it is difficult to determine whether it is technology that challenges the law or the law that shapes, or even predefines, the development paths of new and emerging technologies.

Technology and regulation are often portrayed as adversaries. In a traditional legal setting, their relationship is limited to the grounding of legal reasoning in expert knowledge and scientific evidence. This is frequently the case in the domains of criminal, patent, consumer safety and environmental law. However, as law becomes more and more involved in regulating technological processes and products, it may inhibit or stimulate technological change as such.

Listen to podcast ‘What if technologies shaped the law?‘

In fact, on various occasions the normative influence of regulation upon the shaping of entire technological trajectories depends on the technology of regulation, namely the design and choice of regulatory policy instrument. That has been the case with the contentious development of crop biotechnology in Europe, attributed, among other things, to the centralised and expert-driven regulatory framework adopted for the release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the environment and the European market.

Besides being an object of regulatory action, technology can also have an influential impact not only on the nature, content and type of regulation chosen to control technological developments, but also on the fulfilment of traditional legal objectives. For instance, science-based risk assessments have become the cornerstone of all EU legal rules that regulate the commercial authorisation of medicinal, plant protection and food products. Profiling technologies exert an influential role upon the shaping and interpretation of criminal rules, while internet content filters can protect minors from accessing harmful media content.

The employment of technology as a regulatory actor (appearing in the form of techno-regulation) indicates a shift from a ‘traditional legal order to a technologically managed order’. The development of regulatory technology, commonly known as RegTech, which refers to the use of technology to provide improved financial regulatory solutions, will be crucial to enable more efficient and effective regulation and compliance. In his famous book, Code and other laws of cyberspace, Lawrence Lessig argues that computer code (or ‘West Coast Code’, referring to Silicon Valley) regulates conduct in much the same way as legal code (or ‘East Coast Code’, referring to Washington, DC).

More specifically, code can determine behavioural options and the limits of interaction in virtual spaces, and the level of privacy protection required, as well as defining the terms of access to information in cyberspace. The normative influence of technology is mostly evident in those domains where algorithms are used. Algorithms, as currently understood, are formal rules, usually expressed in computer code as a set of instructions for a computer to follow, that make predictions on future events based on historical patterns. They are a self-contained step-by-step set of operations that computers and other ‘smart’ devices carry out to perform calculations, data processing and automated reasoning tasks.

Algorithms are widely employed to make decisions that have increasingly far-reaching impacts on individuals and society, not least in their applications for access to credit, healthcare, human welfare and employment. They are regulating more and more aspects of our lives by implementing institutional decision-making based on analytics, which involves the discovery, interpretation and communication of meaningful patterns in data, illustrating an increasing tendency to rely on technology as a substitute for other forms of regulation. In fact, self-running and self-enforcing technological applications could challenge traditional notions of legal personality, individual agency and responsibility.

The advent of blockchain technology and the transposition of contractual relationships into smart contract code that simulates the function of legal contracts through technology, or the adjustment of the software codes for autonomous vehicles to traffic regulations may also signal a shift from the traditional notion of ‘code is law’ (i.e. code having the effect of law) to the new conception of law is code. According to this narrative, the law is progressively starting to assume the characteristics of code, given the inclination to replace current laws and regulations with technical regulation – which can be enforced ex ante through code. This can be clearly seen in the case of smart cars that could simply refuse to start the engine if the sensors indicated that the driver had not fastened their seat belt properly, or of the programming of ‘no fly zones’ in drones.

What does the legal conceptualisation of technology mean for European policy-making?

The clear-cut division between law and technology has faded away, on account of the fact that scientific notions and technological concepts such as gene editing and autonomous machines have penetrated legal categories, and triggered the reconsideration of traditional legal terms such as autonomy and privacy. Some scholars have argued that mutual acknowledgment of the boundaries between law and technology has been replaced by a ‘co-production’ regime, where technology and policy are inter-related. The prospect of automated legal governance through the development of digital technologies may also lead to the weakening of centralised structures of law at EU level, in terms of their ability to control and supervise multiple aspects of citizens’ public and private lives.

Examination of the multiple facets of the interface between law and technology and of the increasingly influential role of technology in the shaping of legal rules and reasoning triggers a series of questions. Does EU law have the capacity to strike the right balance between technology as a regulatory object or category and technology as a regulatory agenda-setter? Can law, regulation and technology engage in meaningful conversations that cross doctrinal and technological categories? Should the technical code approached through Lessig’s lens be the most significant form of law? Will EU legislators acknowledge that codes codify values and cannot be treated as a mere question of engineering? A public debate on the aforementioned issues is urgently required given the intrusive potential of code as an enforcement mechanism and/or source of legal obligations that could lead to a Foucauldian networked governmentality and a self-regulated panopticon, whereby the decline of state powers is reinforced, and responsibilities and liabilities are increasingly passed down from the state to the individual technology user.

Read this At a glance on ‘What if technologies shaped the law?‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Christian Scheinert (1st edition),

© DeStagge / Fotolia

The European Union is facing new security threats amid growing uncertainty about the reliability of some of its allies. As a consequence, it has embarked on a general scaling-up of its defence capabilities. A European defence action plan has been agreed and a European Defence Fund created to provide financial support, ranging from the research phase to the acquisition phase of military equipment and technologies. The present legislative proposal for EDIDP, which would be part of that fund, is destined to provide the European defence industry with financial support during the development phase of new products and technologies in areas selected at European level. Parliament’s Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) decided to open trilogue negotiations; these have been ongoing since 15 March 2018.

Versions

• June 2018: ‘European defence industrial development programme (EDIDP)‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the European Defence Industrial Development Programme aiming at supporting the competitiveness and innovation capacity of the EU defence industry Committee responsible: Committee on Industry, Research and Industry (ITRE) COM(2017) 294
7.6.2017 Rapporteur: Françoise Grossetête (EPP, France) 2017/0125(COD) Shadow rapporteurs:

 

  Miroslav Poche (S&D, Czech Republic)
Zdzisław Krasnodębski (ECR, Poland)
Dominique Riquet (ALDE, France)
Neoklis Sylikiotis (GUE/NGL, Cyprus)
Reinhard Bütikofer (Greens/EFA, Germany)
David Borrelli (EFDD, Italy)
Christelle Lechevalier (ENF, France) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Finalisation of trilogue negotiations

Listen to podcast ‘European defence industrial development programme (EDIDP)‘

Written by Angelos Delivorias (1st edition),

© Andrey Popov / Fotolia

Crowdfunding, an open call to the wider public for raising money online, can help ensure that both individuals and companies get access to finance, especially in the seed and early growth stages of their projects or business. Member States with a developed crowdfunding market have designed bespoke regulatory regimes that differ from each other with regard to the conditions under which platforms can operate, their scope of permitted activities and the licensing requirements applicable to them. As a result of this diversity, cross-border flows remain limited and crowdfunding service providers face challenges in scaling up their operations. To remedy this, the Commission has proposed a regulation providing for uniform, proportionate and directly applicable requirements for the authorisation and supervision of crowdfunding platforms, together with a single point of supervision, and a directive exempting crowdfunding service providers from the scope of MiFID II.

Versions

• June 2018: ‘Establishing a basis for European crowdfunding service providers‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European Crowdfunding Service Providers for Business
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2014/65/EU on markets in financial instruments Committee responsible: Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) COM(2018) 99
COM(2018) 113
27.9.2017 Rapporteur: Not yet appointed 2018/0047(COD)
2018/0048(COD) Shadow rapporteurs: Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Initial consideration in committee

 

Read also ‘European crowdfunding service providers for business‘.

Listen to podcast ‘Establishing a basis for European crowdfunding service providers‘

Written by Damiano Scordamaglia (1st edition),

© Monkey Business / Fotolia

In 2007, the EU established a set of basic rights for rail passengers, which became applicable at the end of 2009. These rights provided for all passengers, including those with reduced mobility, a harmonised minimum level of protection, information and assistance. While the implementation of these rights has generally been smooth, recent reports have concluded that this is not done uniformly across the EU. Moreover, other shortcomings have prevented these rights from being used to their full potential.

On 27 September 2017, the European Commission presented a new proposal to address these shortcomings. In its work on this legislative proposal, the EU is seeking to strike a new balance between keeping rail operators competitive and providing adequate passenger protection.

Versions

• June 2018: ‘Rail passengers’ rights and obligations in the EU‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on rail passengers’ rights and obligations Committee responsible: Transport and Tourism (TRAN) COM(2017) 548
27.9.2017 Rapporteur: Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D, Poland) 2017/0237(COD) Shadow rapporteurs:

  Renaud Muselier (EPP, France)
Tomasz Piotr Poręba (ECR, Poland)
Jens Rohde (ALDE, Denmark)
Tania González Peñas (GUE/NGL, Spain)
Michael Cramer (Greens/EFA, Germany) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Vote in TRAN committee on draft report

Written by James McEldowney,

© Springfield Gallery / Fotolia

The Commission announced its proposals for the common agricultural policy post-2020 at the end of November 2017 in the form of a communication on the future of food and farming. They include proposals for: greater simplification to be achieved through increased subsidiarity involving a new delivery model, more effective targeting of direct payments, a shift towards a more results-based approach, and higher ambitions in respect of resource efficiency, environmental care and climate action. Other elements will involve addressing issues such as generational renewal, the investment gap in agriculture, the role of research, innovation and training, risk management and a new green architecture. Under the new delivery model, Member States will have responsibility for establishing a common agricultural policy (CAP) strategic plan; this would be subject to approval by the Commission and would continue to set the basic policy parameters for the CAP.

The proposals have generated a range of responses and have been the subject of discussion within the European Parliament’s Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development. The Council has discussed the content of the communications and they have also been the subject of discussion by the Committee of the Regions (CoR) and the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC).

Looking to the future, some reflections on the Commission’s proposals are considered in light of the views expressed by a number of stakeholder groups. The Bulgarian Presidency has indicated that the future of the common agricultural policy will be discussed at the informal meeting of Ministers of Agriculture in Sofia in June 2018.

Read this briefing on ‘CAP reform post-2020 – Setting the scene‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© jpldesigns / Fotolia

The US President, Donald Trump, and North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, are preparing for a high-stakes summit on the latter country’s nuclear programme, following Trump’s decision on 1 June to revive the meeting after having cancelled it the previous week. At the summit, due to take place on 12 June in Singapore, Trump is expected to press for denuclearisation of North Korea in exchange for easing economic sanctions and, possibly some aid. The main sticking point lies on the meaning the two countries attribute to the word ‘denuclearisation’. Pyongyang, after years of isolation, is engaged in an unprecedented series of high-level meetings with South Korea, China and Russia.

This note offers links to reports and commentaries from some major international think-tanks and research institutes on the North Korean nuclear programme. More reports on the topic can be found in a previous edition of ‘What Think Tanks are thinking’, published in September 2017.

Birds of different feathers: Why the North Korea and Iran problems require distinct solutions
European Council on Foreign Relations, May 2018

The Trump–Kim summit and the future of US strategy in Asia
International Institute for Strategic Studies, May 2018

Can the Trump-Kim summit be rescheduled?
Council on Foreign Relations, May 2018

Canceled summit doesn’t spell end to U.S.-North Korea nuclear diplomacy
Rand Corporation, May 2018

Back to the future: North Korea policy returns to business as usual
Center for a New American Security, May 2018

Not quite back to the drawing board with North Korea
Cato Institute, May 2018

A historic moment
China Institute of International Studies, May 2018

With summit off, United States needs to think through its North Korea strategy
Atlantic Council, May 2018

What’s next for nuclear negotiations with North Korea?
United States Institute of Peace, May 2018

Trumps Lehrstunde
Leibniz-Institut Hessische Stiftung Friedens- und Konfliktforschung, May 2018

Why Trump’s cancellation of the North Korea summit may undermine the US-South Korea alliance
Chicago Council on Global Affairs, May 2018

Putin and North Korea: Exploring Russian interests around the peninsula
Australian Strategic Policy Institute, May 2018

Kim Jong Un is better off now than he was before Trump agreed to a summit
German Marshall Fund, May 2018

Korea summitry: Avoiding catastrophic failure and catastrophic success
Council on Foreign Relations, May 2018

On-again, off-again Korean summit
International Institute for Strategic Studies, May 2018

A step-by-step plan for denuclearizing North Korea
Brookings Institution, May 2018

Cognitive bias and diplomacy with North Korea
Council on Foreign Relations, May 2018

What if North Korea makes an offer Trump can’t refuse?
Cato Institute, May 2018

The inter-Korean summit: Peace is not, yet, at hand
European Council on Foreign Relations, May 2018

Why North Korea is not Libya
Atlantic Council, May 2018

Trump should stay strong on North Korea, but be wary
Hoover Institution, May 2018

Making the most of North Korea’s mixed motives
Council on Foreign Relations, May 2018

Are the stakes higher now for the U.S.–North Korea summit?
Center for Strategic and International Studies, May 2018

China’s clear and present conundrum on the Korean peninsula: Stuck between the past and the future
Chatham House, May 2018

The Korean civil-military balance
Center for Strategic and International Studies, May 2018

Who wants a deal more: North Korea or the United States?
Center for American Progress, May 2018

U.S. decision on Iran unlikely to affect North Korea talks
Brookings Institution, May 2018

U.S. trade, North Korea policies bring Asia’s biggest economies to table
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, May 2018

To make history at North Korea summit, Trump should prepare like Reagan did for Gorbachev
Hoover Institution, May 2018

With Kim Jong Un, there’s no ‘win-win’
American Enterprise Institute, May 2018

Historic summit at Panmunjom
Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, May 2018

The gathering health storm inside North Korea
Center for Strategic and International Studies, May 2018

North Korea’s nuclear weapons and Australia’s national security
Australian Institute for International Affairs, May 2018

North Korea’s military capabilities
Council on Foreign Relations, April 2018

Neutralizing a nuclear-armed North Korea
Heritage Foundation, April 2018

North Korea and the ANZUS Treaty
Australian Strategic Policy Institute, May 2018

Summit showcases the diplomatic agility of both Korean leaders
Chatham House, April 2018

Avoiding a Korean Calamity: Why resolving the dispute with Pyongyang requires keeping the peace
Cato Institute, April 2018

Preparing for U.S.-North Korea talks
Rand Corporation, April 2018

Crisis and new political agenda for the Korean peninsula and the regional powers
Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Science, March 2018

The other side of the North Korean threat: looking beyond its nuclear weapons and ICBMs
Center for Strategic and International Studies, March 2018

More than a nuclear threat: North Korea’s chemical, biological, and conventional weapons
Center for Strategic and International Studies, March 2018

The China–North Korea relationship
Council on Foreign Relations, March 2018

Centripetal and centrifugal forces of North Korean threat on the U.S.-Japan-ROK Cooperation
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, March 2018

What will Kim Jong Un want and what he might give
Rand Corporation, March 2018

Low-cost options for airborne delivery of contraband into North Korea
Rand Corporation, March 2018

Japan’s view of the North Korean threat
Istituto Affari Internazionali, March 2018

Flagging down North Korea on the High Seas
Royal United Services Institute, March 2018

John Bolton: Surrender is not an option
Peterson Institute for International Economics, March 2018

Read this briefing on ‘North Korea’s nuclear summitry‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

With European elections coming up in May 2019, you probably want to know how the European Union impacts your daily life, before you think about voting. In the latest in a series of posts on what Europe does for you, your family, your business and your wellbeing, we look at what Europe does for people who worry about fake news.

Do you avoid the news, perhaps because you feel you cannot rely on the news to be true? A March 2018 Eurobarometer poll suggested there is great concern among internet users in Europe about fake news: 85 % of respondents see fake news as a problem in their country and 83 % perceive it as a problem for democracy.

© Feodora / Fotolia

The European Union has stepped up its response to this challenge in recent years. In 2015, High Representative/Vice-President Federica Mogherini set up a small team to collect and debunk pro-Kremlin anti-EU disinformation. In June 2017, the European Parliament asked the European Commission to take a closer look at fake news and online disinformation.

The EU’s Digital Commissioner, Mariya Gabriel, asked experts from academia, online platforms, news media and civil society for their advice on fake news and online disinformation in October 2017. Gabriel also asked for feedback from the public. According to this public consultation, disinformation aiming to influence elections and migration policies were the top categories where most respondents thought fake news were likely to harm society. The high level expert group advises improvements to: media and information literacy; tools for users and journalists to tackle disinformation; and securing a diverse and sustainable European news media. The EU already supports a number of initiatives to enable all citizens to understand and engage with digital media.

Further information

• Questions and Answers about the East StratCom Task Force, https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-Homepage/2116/questions-and-answers-about-east-stratcom-task-force_en
• EPRS publication ‘How to spot when news is fake’, 2017, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_ATA%282017%29599386
• European Commission, Digital Single Market policy, Fake news, 26 October 2017, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/fake-news

With European elections coming up in May 2019, you probably want to know how the European Union impacts your daily life, before you think about voting. In the latest in a series of posts on what Europe does for you, your family, your business and your wellbeing, we look at what Europe does for ferry passengers.

If you’ve taken a ferry journey this year, chances are you weren’t alone. There are 400 million passenger journeys to or from EU ports every year. The next time you hop on board a ferry in an EU port, think of how many aspects of your crossing are backed up with EU rules.

Your passage through the port should have gone smoothly thanks to established security standards. If your ship flies a flag of an EU country, it is regularly inspected by a specialised authority checking all the aspects necessary to its safe navigation – including water-tightness, fire safety and lack of wear and tear. The equipment on board, such as lifeboats, also has to meet safety requirements and be certified. EU rules also require that the crew receive quality training and that their working conditions do not compromise the ship’s safety. While most of these rules are based on international standards, the EU has incorporated them into its laws so that they are applied in a harmonised way in all EU countries and can be legally enforced.

© Christopher Dodge / Fotolia

As a passenger travelling by sea you enjoy the same rights wherever you travel in the EU. These include the right to information or compensation in case of delay or cancellation. And your shipping company must be sufficiently insured to cover the risks of possible damage not only to your person, but also to your luggage and vehicle.

On leaving the port, everyone on board has to have been counted and registered. To help potential search and rescue operations, new EU rules mean that the relevant passenger data will soon be digitalised and registered electronically.

Further information

• EPRS publication on Inspection of ro-ro ferries and high-speed passenger craft
• EPRS publication on Registration of persons on board passenger ships
• EPRS publication on Safety rules and standards for passenger ships
• European Commission’s Directorate General for mobility and transport website, https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/maritime/safety-and-environment/safety-passenger-ships_en

With European elections coming up in May 2019, you probably want to know how the European Union impacts your daily life, before you think about voting. In the latest in a series of posts on what Europe does for you, your family, your business and your wellbeing, we look at what Europe does for antibiotic users.

Antibiotics are a very useful drug when you are sick and the doctor tells you that you need to take them. However, antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a growing global threat to public health. It occurs when bacteria and other microbes, like viruses and fungi, develop resistance to drugs, especially antibiotics, used to treat the infections they cause. Although resistance appears naturally over time, it is accelerated by factors like overuse of antimicrobial medicines on humans and animals. In the EU alone it is estimated that infections caused by resistant microbes are responsible for 25 000 deaths a year. Some forecasts say that by 2050, drug-resistant infections could cause more deaths than cancer.

© Kenishirotie / Fotolia

For almost two decades, the European Union has been working on a solution to AMR. It strives to strengthen existing good practices and to support countries fighting AMR in both humans and animals. For instance, the EU promotes prudent use of antimicrobials and improved infection prevention. Every November, European Antibiotic Awareness Day promotes the responsible use of antibiotics, as many people are not aware of the risks of misusing antibiotics. The EU also aims to improve cooperation related to activities on AMR across the EU, targeting all actors who play a role in antimicrobial drug usage, such as the pharmaceutical industry. EU funds have been invested in, for example, common research efforts to develop new effective antibiotics. Moreover, the EU has reinforced cooperation with international organisations and third countries on surveillance and research.

Further information

• European Commission’s Directorate General for Health and Food Safety website, https://ec.europa.eu/health/amr/antimicrobial-resistance_en
• European Commission’s Directorate General for Research and Innovation website, https://ec.europa.eu/research/health/index.cfm?pg=area&areaname=amdr
• European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control’s website, https://ecdc.europa.eu/en/antimicrobial-resistance