European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

Written by Györgyi Mácsai (Members’ Research Service) and Igor Tkalec (GlobalStat, EUI).

The UK was a European Union Member State from 1973 until 31 January 2020. For reasons of comparability and consistency, the historical data for the ‘EU-27’ in this infographic covers all current Member States, regardless of whether they were Member States at the time concerned.

Main types of services in EU trade with UK Main types of products in EU trade with UK Top EU MS trade partners of UK Main trade partners of EU and UK EU trade history with UK UK portfolio investment assets UK FDI and remittances UK public finances, monetary and financial data UK unemployment rate and female labour force participation UK GDP per capita and GDP growth

Read this ‘infographic’ on ‘United Kingdom: Economic indicators and trade with EU‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Rachele Rossi.

This year marks both the 60th anniversary of the EU’s common agricultural policy (CAP) and a crucial turning point in its way of functioning, with a new delivery model in place that will kick in from 2023. The timeline below highlights major legislative and policy developments that have shaped the CAP over the past six decades.

ORIGINS OF THE CAP 1958The Treaty of Rome places agriculture at the heart of the activities of the new European Economic Community and tasks it with achieving increased agricultural productivity, a fair standard of living for farmers, availability of supplies, stabilised markets and a secure supply chain with reasonable prices.1962After complex negotiations, the first legislative acts launch the CAP into being, establish the Common Market Organisations (CMOs) in cereals, pork, poultry, wine, and fruit and vegetables, and the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF). A system of guarantees based on support for producer prices is set up to ensure the sale of agricultural output.1965The Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) starts gathering data on the income and business activities of farms; a year later the Farm Structure Surveys (FSS) starts gathering data on the structure of agricultural holdings. These two longest-standing sources of statistical information on EU agriculture have contributed to informing policy decision-making to this day.1968Since by now self-sufficiency has not only been reached but has also largely been exceeded, the focus shifts to creating greater balance between the measures targeting agricultural markets and those aimed at modernising agricultural structures. Agriculture 1980, or the Mansholt Plan (named after Sicco Mansholt, the Dutch European Commissioner for agriculture from 1958 to 1972), is adopted to this end.1972Three socio‑structural directives introduce incentives for the modernisation of farms, for retirement from farming, and for the provision of advice and training to farmers.1984A quota system to limit over-production and manage supplies is introduced for products such as milk. Producers exceeding their quota are now required to pay a surplus levy.1985The Green Paper on the CAP’s perspectives puts forward ideas for further debate, such as the reduction of price support and the diversification of measures supporting agricultural incomes. These ideas include the recognition that besides ensuring our food supplies, agriculture contributes to the maintenance of the social fabric in rural areas, the protection of land, and the conservation of natural resources. REFORMING THE CAP 1992The MacSharry reform (named after Ray MacSharry, the Irish European Commissioner for agriculture from 1989 to 1992) introduces a new approach to support for farmers, the aim being to reduce the CAP budget, cut over-production and comply with the obligations under international trade agreements. The reform effects a gradual shift from unlimited guaranteed prices and grants to compensatory income aid based on farmland area or livestock numbers. Accompanying measures focus on support for environmental protection, afforestation of agricultural land and early retirement from farming.1999The Agenda 2000 programme paves the way to CAP and EU regional policy reform, and seeks to strengthen the EU’s capacity to receive new members and continue to abide by the World Trade Organization’s rules on international trade. The programme equips the CAP with a second pillar dedicated to rural development and introduces a more general approach to agriculture and rural development based on improving agricultural competitiveness, providing alternative sources of income to people living in rural areas, and strengthening social cohesion in rural communities.2003The Fischler reform (named after Franz Fischler, the Austrian European Commissioner for agriculture from 1995 to 2004), also referred to as the ‘mid-term review’, overhauls the CAP. It introduces the innovative single payment scheme (SPS), a single farm payment that removes the link between subsidies and volumes of production for a large share of CAP support. The SPS builds on farmers’ historical entitlements to CAP payments, on the ‘cross-compliance’ rules that farmers had to observe with regard to the environment, animal welfare, plant protection, and food safety, and on the ‘modulation’ approach where funds are shifted to rural development by reducing transfers to larger farms.2007The European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) replace the EAGGF. A single CMO replaces the existing 21 CMOs.2008Though not as radical as previous reforms, a ‘health check’ of the CAP is carried out to make it simpler and more effective. The initiative involves adapting market support, increasing modulation, and addressing challenges such as climate change and the protection of biodiversity and natural resources.2009The Treaty of Lisbon introduces the ordinary legislative procedure for the EU agricultural policy. Henceforth, the European Parliament and the Council will co-legislate on reforms on an equal footing.2013The reform for the 2014-2020 CAP seeks to respond to new societal demands placed on the CAP to deliver public goods alongside its original objectives. This reform addresses concerns such as climate change, the sustainable use of natural resources, animal welfare, and food safety, by greening CAP farm payments and incentivising the fairer distribution of funds (for example, for smaller farms and young farmers) and increased spending on rural development projects.2015Following the progressive increase of the quotas since 2009, the end of dairy quotas allows farmers to expand their production based on the market demand for milk products. Along the same lines, the end of sugar quotas in 2017 removes limitations on how much EU producers can put on the market. TOWARDS THE FUTURE CAP 2018The European Commission adopts the post-2020 CAP legislative proposals. These put forward a new delivery model for the future CAP, typified by greater flexibility as to how the Member States would apply the policy at local level, while preserving its common dimension.2019The European Green Deal sets out the EU’s commitment to tackling climate and environment-related challenges by acting in a number of policy areas, including agri-food policies.2020In line with the Green Deal roadmap, the ‘farm to fork’ and biodiversity strategies are unveiled. Together with the Green Deal, these strategies set quantified targets for EU farming and rural areas, calling for an additional effort in the already demanding interinstitutional negotiations on the 2018 CAP reform proposals. In the absence of an agreement on the future CAP, a transitional regulation extends most of the existing CAP rules until the end of 2022.2021After extensive negotiations, the Parliament and Council agree on the 2023-2027 CAP legislative framework and adopt it at the end of the year. The future CAP envisages a fairer distribution of funds, higher green ambitions and a more results-oriented approach. The farm payment scheme is renamed as basic income support for sustainability (BISS). Eco-schemes are introduced to reward farmers for environmental care and climate action. A new tool – the CAP strategic plan – now allows Member States to specify how CAP funds will address local needs to achieve measurable results on common objectives.
The European Commission’s communication on A long-term vision for the EU’s rural areas is a significant policy development – it puts the specific issues and challenges faced by rural areas at the core of a wide‑ranging set of actions that go beyond the scope of the CAP.2022The Commission services analyse the CAP strategic plans in a structured dialogue with the Member States, aiming at timely approval of the strategic plans for their implementation as of 1 January 2023. The reformed CAP is seen as a key policy in moving towards more sustainable food systems. For more information on the CAP’s evolution, see the EPRS publications on agriculture and rural development and the European Parliament’s factsheets on the common agricultural policy.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘1962-2022: The EU common agricultural policy at 60‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Maria-Margarita Mentzelopoulou.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has forced millions of people, mostly women and children, to flee the country or they have become displaced within Ukraine’s borders, resulting in one of the largest European humanitarian crises in recent times. The chaos generated by the conflict has exponentially increased the risk of human trafficking and exploitation, especially of the most vulnerable persons.

The risk of trafficking and exploitation

The United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) estimates that, since the beginning of the war on 24 February, more than 5.5 million people have fled Ukraine, seeking refuge in neighbouring countries – mainly Poland, Hungary, Moldova, Romania and Slovakia – and over 7.7 million have been internally displaced. The sheer scale of the destruction and the civilian casualties caused by the war have led to one of the largest European humanitarian crises in recent times. UNICEF estimates that no less than 7.5 million children have been impacted by the war in Ukraine. As men aged 18 to 60 are not allowed to leave the country, it is mostly women and children who are seeking protection abroad. Thanks to the activation of the Temporary Protection Directive, which grants immediate protection and rights to those arriving in the European Union (EU) from Ukraine, there is little to no incentive for Ukrainians to seek help from migrant smugglers. However, women and children – in particular unaccompanied ones – are still at higher risk of violence and abuse, including human trafficking, smuggling and illegal adoption. In fact, even before the war, Ukrainians had been among the most frequent victims of trafficking into the EU, perpetrated by criminal networks operating between Ukraine and countries in Europe and central Asia. Moreover, the high numbers of orphans and children born through surrogate mothers in Ukraine, who have not been picked up by their parents, also face an increased risk of abduction or forced adoption. Due to mass displacement and chaos, the number of missing children is also expected to increase.

The International Organization for Migration (IOM) has warned of the high risk of human trafficking and sexual exploitation of the population in distress, but also of the financial insecurity suffered by certain children who are unaccompanied (UAMs) and by women who have been separated from their partners and support networks. Many children are without parental care, either because they have become separated from their families or because they were living in institutional care or boarding schools when the Russian invasion started. Therefore, while welcoming the support of individuals offering transport and accommodation, associations working on the ground are calling for coordinated action to inform, register and accompany women and children and vet potential hosts. Poorer men not wishing to be conscripted may also be a potential target of traffickers. The UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has called for strengthening anti-trafficking efforts, including the early detection and prevention of related criminal activity and the identification and protection of victims. Eurochild provides daily reports of alleged violations of children’s rights. For children who remained in the country, this would include, inter alia, killing and wounding, no adequate access to medical care, trafficking, and lack of access to education. UNICEF has published advice to the relevant authorities, aid workers and volunteers on protecting displaced and refugee children in and outside Ukraine from human trafficking, child labour, sexual exploitation, illegal adoption and aggravated smuggling. UNICEF has also warned that displaced girls are at particular risk of gender-based violence.

EU action to protect people at risk who are fleeing Ukraine

The EU has immediately stepped in to help civilians affected by the war in Ukraine, by activating the Temporary Protection Directive (Directive 2001/55/EC) and launching emergency aid programmes that cover basic needs and offer assistance at the EU borders. On 16 March, the Commission put forward operational guidelines to support Member States in applying the directive, including dedicated chapters on children, UAMs and trafficking of human beings. The Commission strongly encourages the Member States to put in place adequate prevention measures targeting persons fleeing Ukraine. These include provision of information on the risks of trafficking, awareness-raising among the key professionals likely to come into contact with potential victims, training and instructions to the relevant law enforcement and border authorities, as well as improving early detection, assistance and support to victims. The Commission underscores that protecting migrant children arriving from Ukraine is a top priority for the EU, and that particular attention should be paid to UAMs, separated and orphan children. On 23 March, the Commission encouraged the Member States again to be ‘particularly vigilant’ about children at risk of being trafficked or abducted, highlighting the importance of identification and registration.

At the extraordinary meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 28 March, the Commission presented a 10-point plan on stronger European coordination on welcoming people fleeing the war in Ukraine. The plan will include standard operating procedures and uniform guidelines for the reception and support of children. The Commission is also to develop specific procedures for the transfer of unaccompanied minors. A joint anti-trafficking plan, based on the EU strategy on combatting trafficking in human beings (2021-2025), will address the risks of trafficking and ensure support for potential victims. A number of relevant measures were also considered, including the creation of a common registration system with support from eu-LISA. The EU Anti-trafficking Coordinator has also been active since the beginning of the invasion, maintaining close contact with the network of national anti-trafficking coordinators and Europol. The latter is actively participating in the human trafficking task force and has deployed experts and guest officers to support local law enforcement authorities in the EU Member States bordering Ukraine. The Commission has also called for using EU funds to prevent trafficking.

The Council of Europe’s Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA) has likewise warned of the danger faced by people fleeing Ukraine of falling victim to human trafficking and exploitation. There are already reports of traffickers targeting UAMs fleeing Ukraine; many such children are currently unaccounted for following the hasty evacuation of orphanages and foster homes. In addition, on 4 May GRETA also published a guidance note with relevant recommendations.

European Parliament’s response

The European Parliament Intergroup on Children’s Rights, during a mission to Poland’s border with Ukraine, called for a centralised robust registration system at the border and for the creation of safe passages and humanitarian corridors for children. On 29 March, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (FEMM) had an exchange of views with the Commissioner for Home Affairs, Ylva Johansson, on the situation of Ukrainian women and children. MEPs expressed concerns about the humanitarian situation and the risk of human trafficking and sexual abuse, such as the use of rape as a weapon, and called on the Member States and the EU to swiftly identify and prosecute the trafficking networks profiting from sexual exploitation of women refugees. On 4 April, during a joint debate, the Committees on Development (DEVE) and on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) discussed with Commissioners Johansson and Janez Lenarčič the implementation of the Temporary Protection Directive and humanitarian assistance to the displaced population, in particular children (more than 2 million children have already fled Ukraine).

In the plenary debate of 5 April, Commissioners Šuica and Johansson once again underlined the risk of human trafficking and stressed the need to prioritise efficient registration of all UAMs and separated children with the help of national authorities. Moreover, the Legal Affairs (JURI) and Employment (EMPL) Committees held a joint meeting on 21 April to address the risk of illegal adoption of Ukrainian children from institutional care. The European Parliament’s Coordinator on Children’s Rights, Vice-President Ewa Kopacz, has repeatedly stressed the risks faced by children escaping the conflict, and launched common actions with the European Network of Ombudspersons for Children (ENOC) and the EU Network on Children’s Rights, calling for measures to prevent trafficking and improve registration processes at EU level. Finally, MEPs adopted a resolution during the May I plenary session, expressing their concerns about the increasing number of reports of human trafficking, sexual violence, exploitation, rape, and abuse of women and children fleeing the war in Ukraine.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Russia’s war on Ukraine: The risk of trafficking of human beings‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Micaela Del Monte and David de Groot.

More than two months into the Russian aggression against Ukraine, there is no sign of it ending – on the contrary, the news show the conflict and the atrocities committed on Ukrainian soil intensifying. The war has pushed millions of people to flee the country, or they have been displaced within Ukraine’s borders, resulting in one of the largest European humanitarian crises in recent times. With each passing day, the chaos engendered by the war increases the risk of violence and exploitation exponentially, in particular for the most vulnerable, including women, children, Roma people, and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersexual (LGBTI) community.

Humanitarian situation of people fleeing Ukraine and being displaced

As of 2 May 2022, the United Nations Refugee Agency, UNHCR, estimated that over 5 million people have fled from Ukraine to neighbouring countries – mainly to Poland, which alone welcomed around 3 million people, but also to Hungary, Moldova, Romania and Slovakia. Moreover, 7.7 million people have been displaced within Ukraine’s borders. Mostly women and children are seeking shelter and protection from Russia’s war against the country. As the days go by, the conflict is generating ever more casualties, destruction and displacement inside and outside Ukraine, giving rise to one of the greatest humanitarian crises in Europe of recent times. The UNCHR reports that, as of 2 May 2022, the UN Human Rights Commissioner (OHCHR) had recorded as many as 6 469 civilian casualties in the country: 3 153 killed and 3 316 injured. However, the OHCHR considers that the actual figures might be higher, because information from areas experiencing ongoing hostilities is delayed, and the reports need corroboration. According to the Council on Foreign Relations think-tank, the Ukraine crisis has triggered the ‘biggest show of European mobilisation in recent years’. The EU promptly activated, for the first time ever, the Temporary Protection Directive, coordinated the largest operation of the EU civil protection mechanism to date, and stepped up financial assistance to Ukraine. (Since the 2014 annexation of Crimea and occupation of eastern Ukraine, the EU and its Member States have disbursed a total of €1.4 billion in humanitarian aid to help affected civilians in Ukraine.) The EU also proposed to use cohesion funds to help Member States welcome people fleeing Ukraine. Nevertheless, the situation remained challenging, with the human cost far too high. Indeed, the mass displacement and the ensuing turmoil in Ukraine have raised serious concerns about human rights violations inside and outside the country, in particular of those belonging to vulnerable groups, including women, children, unaccompanied minors, the Roma, and also LGBTI people.

Specific risks facing Ukrainian LGBTI people in times of conflict

In the aftermath of Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, the media and non-governmental organisations have highlighted how a combination of xenophobia and anti-LGBTI positions may have particularly severe impacts on the LGBTI community during hostilities. ILGA-Europe stressed that existing discrimination and violence against LGBTI people may be aggravated during armed conflicts, and new challenges may arise. For instance, trans and intersex people in Ukraine do not have identification documents with gender markers matching their gender identity; and they may lose access to hormone replacement therapy or other medical treatments. Some may be unable to leave the country, as trans women, non-binary people registered ‘male’ at birth, and trans men are considered ‘men’ and – being potential recruits – are not allowed to leave Ukraine. If recruited, trans people face a higher risk of harassment and violence. The Equal Rights Coalition (ERC), an intergovernmental body of 42 member states committed to protecting the LGBTI community’s rights, expressed its concerns about the ‘additional dangers’ faced by LGBTI people seeking protection from the conflict in Ukraine. ERC stressed that displaced LGBTI people are often marginalised, and may even be excluded from evacuation and emergency responses.

In 2021, a UNHCR discussion paper on ‘LGBTIQ+ Persons in Forced Displacement and Statelessness’ already highlighted some of the risks LGBTI people may face. These are, in particular, discrimination, harassment, abuse, bullying, and physical, emotional and sexual violence, including, but not limited to, murder, rape, torture, and psychiatric and psychological ‘so-called conversion therapies‘. As the discussion paper also mentioned, in some circumstances, frontline registration staff may not always be aware of an LGBTI person’s particular circumstances, or an LGBTI person may refrain from sharing their personal situation for fear of violence and discrimination. Some of the challenges identified had already existed long before the conflict began. For instance, although homosexuality is legal in Ukraine (albeit neither same-sex partnerships nor adoptions by same-sex couples are legally possible), research from the Pew Research Centre revealed that, in 2019, 69 % of those surveyed in Ukraine said homosexuality should not be accepted. In April 2022, a UN expert urged all interested parties to pay particular attention to the needs of LGBTI and gender-diverse refugees, asylum-seekers, internally displaced and undocumented people. He also recalled that the LGBTI community is most vulnerable to ‘acts of stigmatisation, harassment and violence’ during armed conflicts, and in particular at checkpoints, border crossings, reception centres and health facilities. At the same time, he welcomed civil society organisations’ support for LGBTI and gender-diverse people. Along similar lines, Christophe Lacroix, the general rapporteur on the rights of LGBTI people within the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), observed that human rights violations, including sexual violence, against LGBTI people already happen in times of peace, and all the more during war, often remaining unreported and unpunished. Trans and gender-diverse people face additional problems in accessing appropriate medical care and crossing borders, because of lack of appropriate identity documents. According to Lacroix, the conflict in Ukraine is particularly difficult for LGTBI people considering the geopolitical situation, suffice to recall Russia’s repeated breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights, and LGBTI rights violations in Chechnya and Belarus.

European Parliament position

In a resolution of 1 March 2022, the European Parliament strongly condemned ‘the Russian Federation’s illegal, unprovoked and unjustified military aggression against and invasion of Ukraine’, and recalled that ‘attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure as well as indiscriminate attacks are prohibited under international humanitarian law and therefore constitute war crimes’. It also called on the Commission, the Member States and UN agencies to offer Ukraine’s civilian population humanitarian assistance. Parliament stressed the need to pay particular attention to vulnerable groups, minorities, and women and children, because they are particularly affected in armed conflicts. In a 2021 recommendation to the Council, Commission and High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the Commission on the direction of EU–Russia political relations, Parliament stressed that the ‘LGBTI+ community in various parts of the Russian Federation faces extensive discrimination, including harassment, torture, imprisonment and killings’. It also underlined that the situation was particularly worrying in Chechnya, ‘which in 2017 started its purge of LGBTI+ people, detaining and torturing dozens and killing at least two, leading to many people seeking safe refuge abroad’.

That same year, Parliament’s resolution on the implementation of the EU association agreement with Ukraine stressed that LGBTI people, feminist activists and Roma people were still faced with discrimination, and continuously subjected to hate speech and violent attacks. In a May 2017 resolution, Parliament expressed its deep concern at the reports of arbitrary detention and torture of men ‘perceived to be gay in the Republic of Chechnya in the Russian Federation’. In a recommendation of 16 September 2021, Parliament considered that the LGBTI+ community in various parts of the Russian Federation faces extensive discrimination, including harassment, torture, imprisonment and killings. Parliament stressed that the situation was particularly dangerous in Chechnya, which in 2017 started its purge of LGBTI+ people, detaining and torturing dozens and killing at least two, which led to many seeking safe refuge abroad. Back in 2014, the European Parliament’sLGBTI Intergroup had issued a statement on the alarming situation of LGTBI people in Ukraine, in particular following the Russian annexation of Crimea. The Intergroup reported the LGTBI community as being subject to the Russian ‘anti-propaganda’ law.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Russia’s war on Ukraine: The situation of LGBTI people‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by CLare Ferguson and Katarzyna Sochacka.

Russia’s war on Ukraine was again at the top of the agenda for the May I 2022 plenary session in Strasbourg. Members held three important debates related to the war: on the social and economic consequences for the EU and reinforcing the EU’s capacity to act, on EU preparedness against cyber-attacks following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and on the impact on the EU transport and tourism sectors. Parliament debated Commission and Council statements on threats to the safety of journalists and media freedom, marking the annual World Press Freedom Day, on ongoing hearings under Article 7(1) TEU regarding Poland and Hungary, on the state of play of EU-Moldova cooperation, on building a wall on the Poland–Belarus border in the Białowieża primeval forest, and on threats to stability, security and democracy in western Africa and the Sahel. The follow up of the Conference on the Future of Europe was also debated. Following on from recent reforms to the structure of the plenary agenda, and in particular the return of question time with the Commission, Members discussed Europe’s energy autonomy – the strategic importance of renewables and energy interconnections and efficiency – with Commissioner Kadri Simson. A debate entitled ‘This is Europe’ was held with the Prime Minister of Italy, Mario Draghi, and other Heads of State or Government are expected to take part in future plenary sessions. Among the other debates held were those on the discharge for the 2020 budget, the EU action plan for organic agriculture, distortive foreign subsidies, the 2021 annual report on competition policy, and on artificial intelligence in a digital age.  

Discharge 2020

As every year, Members carry out democratic oversight of spending under the EU budget, and in a joint debate considered 53 reports examining whether EU institutions, agencies and other bodies complied with the rules and the principles of sound financial management in their 2020 expenditure. Firstly, Members followed the Committee on Budgetary Control (CONT) recommendation that Parliament grant discharge to the European Commission and to all six executive agencies, which are responsible for the bulk of EU budget spending. It also granted separate discharge for the European development funds. The committee insisted that the Commission act to end violations of the rule of law and to use the tools it has to make payment of EU funding conditional on respect for EU values. It also highlighted the risk of a continuing gap between the high level of commitments and the amount of payments made. It made recommendations concerning monitoring of expenditure and detection of fraud.

On discharge for the other EU institutions, Members postponed, following the CONT committee recommendation, the decision on granting discharge for the European Council and Council, and for the Economic and Social Committee, with the committee to table new reports within six months. The committee decried the European Council and Council’s refusal to disclose how it has spent EU taxpayers’ money, a situation that has persisted since 2009. It also criticised the European Council’s interference in the legislative process, when it has no legislative role. The committee criticised the re-appointment of a member investigated for harassment to the Economic and Social Committee. While the committee had recommended postponing discharge, Members voted to grant discharge to the Court of Auditors, while demanding clarification on the payment of allowances at the Court of Auditors, following media reports of misuse. Parliament then granted discharge to 9 joint undertakings and 31 of the 32 EU decentralised agencies, where action has largely been taken to remedy previous shortcomings. Members however postponed the discharge for the European Border and Coast Guard Agency until the agency has addressed the findings of an EU Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) investigation regarding harassment, misconduct and migrant pushbacks, and has shared the outcome with Parliament.

Strengthening Europol’s mandate

New technologies are altering the security domain, providing both an opportunity to enhance EU action to counter serious crime and terrorism and a challenge to protecting personal data. Parliament approved the provisional agreement resulting from interinstitutional negotiations on the proposal to strengthen Europol‘s mandate. While Parliament’s Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) Committee supported the proposal, it sought stronger safeguards, democratic oversight and accountability. The approved text will reinforce cooperation with private parties and third countries, encourage research and innovation at Europol, and improve the rules on how the law enforcement agency deals with both data analysis and protection.

Persistent organic pollutants

Parliament debated and adopted by large majority a report on a proposal which would strengthen limits on the use of certain harmful chemicals. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety proposes stricter limits than in the Commission’s proposal for persistent organic pollutants (carbon-based chemicals that get into our bodies through the food chain) in waste. The committee proposes stronger restrictions on chemicals found in incinerated waste, pesticides, water and fireproofing, aiming for a toxic-free environment. The adopted report sets Parliament’s position for negotiations with the Council on the proposal.

Artificial intelligence in a digital age

Parliament set up its Special Committee on Artificial Intelligence in a Digital Age (AIDA) in 2020, to investigate the challenges of deploying AI technologies and to analyse their impact on the EU economy. The committee has now completed its work, and Members debated and then adopted a resolution on its final report on the potential opportunities and risks, as well as measures to ensure the EU becomes a global leader in AI. The report concludes with an urgent call for action to promote a human-centric, trustworthy and inclusive approach to AI, based on fundamental rights, that manages risks while taking full advantage of the benefits.

Election of the Members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage

Members debated and voted by a small majority a Committee on Constitutional Affairs report proposing to further harmonise the national rules on European elections. The rules on eligibility and accessibility are not the same in every EU country at present, and as well as further harmonising them, the Parliament proposes to create a Union-wide constituency. This would give citizens two votes (one national, one Union-wide), with the second used to elect 28 Members to the European Parliament through transnational electoral lists – with strict requirements to ensure reasonable balance among Member States – and a uniform electoral system. Now that the Parliament has adopted its formal proposal, it is transmitted to the Council, which has to adopt the new rules, following the Parliament’s consent on the final text. Once adopted, the new regulation would also need to be ratified by each Member State before it can come into force.

Opening of trilogue negotiations

Members confirmed, without a vote, mandates for negotiation from the Fisheries Committee (PECH) on the proposal for a regulation on conservation and management measures for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna, and on the proposal for a regulation on certain provisions for fishing in the GFCM (General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean) Agreement area, as well as from the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee (IMCO) on the proposal for a directive on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of radio equipment (common chargers for mobile phones).

Members also approved by a vote mandates for negotiations from the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee (LIBE) on the proposals for regulations extending the framework for the issuance, verification and acceptance of interoperable Covid-19 vaccination, test and recovery certificates (EU Digital Covid Certificate) to facilitate free movement of EU citizens during the pandemic and for third-country nationals legally staying or residing in the territories of Member States.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Plenary round-up – May I 2022‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Nikolina Šajn.

The amount of clothes bought per person in the European Union (EU) has increased by 40 % in just a few decades, driven by a fall in prices and the increased speed with which fashion is delivered to consumers. Clothing has the fourth highest impact on the environment of all categories of EU consumption. This impact is often felt in non-EU countries, where most production takes place. The production of raw materials, spinning them into fibres, weaving fabrics and dyeing require enormous amounts of water and chemicals, including pesticides for growing raw materials such as cotton. Consumer use also has a large environmental footprint, owing to the water, energy and chemicals used in washing, tumble-drying and ironing, and microplastics shed into the environment. Less than half of used clothes are collected for reuse or recycling when they are no longer needed, and only 1 % are recycled into new clothes, since technologies that would enable clothes to be recycled into virgin fibres are only now starting to emerge.

Various ways to address these issues have been proposed, including developing new business models for clothing rental, designing products in a way that would make re-use and recycling easier (circular fashion), convincing consumers to buy fewer clothes of better quality (slow fashion), and generally steering consumer behaviour towards choosing more sustainable options.

The European Commission laid out its vision for the textiles sector for 2030 in the March 2022 EU strategy for sustainable and circular textiles. The Commission has proposed a regulation on ecodesign requirements for sustainable products and a directive on empowering consumers for the green transition. The package will aim to make all products on the internal market more sustainable, while providing consumers with information on sustainability. The application of these rules to textiles will be specified in delegated acts, largely planned for 2024.

This briefing expands on and updates a 2019 EPRS briefing Environmental impact of the textile and clothing industry: What consumers need to know.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Textiles and the environment‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Gyorgyi Macsai (Members’ Research Service) with Igor Tkalec (GlobalStat, EUI).

Trade relations between the EU and Chile are imbalanced not only in terms of trends in export and import of goods, but also in the diversity of trade products and in their ranking in the list of main trade partners. The EU was Chile’s third biggest trade partner in 2021, with a 10,4 % share in Chile’s trade with the world. Germany, Spain and the Netherlands are leading the list of Chile’s top EU trade partners.

Read this infographic on ‘Chile: Economic indicators and trade with EU‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Vivienne Halleux.

In the European Union (EU), one in eight deaths is linked to environmental pollution. Pollution is also one of the five main causes of biodiversity loss, representing a significant cost for society. The EU has set the goal of achieving zero pollution for a non-toxic environment by 2050. This would mean reducing air, water and soil pollution to ‘levels no longer considered harmful to health and natural ecosystems and respecting the boundaries the planet can cope with’.

Achieving this long-term ambition will mean updating the comprehensive legal framework currently in place at EU level to address pollution in order to keep up with the latest scientific evidence. In 2022, the EU is expected to review its air quality standards to align more closely with the recently updated World Health Organization recommendations, and to look into pollutants affecting surface and groundwater. Additional areas that should be revised in parallel include key laws designed to tackle pollution at source, setting requirements for pollutant emissions from industry and vehicles, for urban wastewater treatment and sustainable use of pesticides. The key challenges in achieving the zero pollution goal remain to ensure policy coherence, compliance and enforcement. Other issues to monitor include liability for pollution and related costs, with recent assessments pointing to the need to be consistent and rigorous in implementing the ‘polluter pays’ principle.

Parliament has pushed for ambitious action to protect people’s health and the environment from pollution. It has argued that air quality legislation should also cover non-regulated pollutants with demonstrated adverse impacts, such as ultrafine particles, black carbon, mercury and ammonia. It has also called for decisive action on pollutants of emerging concern in water, such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, microplastics, endocrine-disrupting chemicals and pharmaceuticals. Finally, it has urged the Commission to design a dedicated legal framework for soil protection, equivalent to that existing for water and air.

Recently, steps have been taken at global level to curb plastic pollution through legally binding means and to form a science-policy interface body on chemicals and waste.

Read the complete briefing on ‘The EU’s zero pollution ambition: Moving towards a non-toxic environment‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Maria Diaz Crego (1st edition).

During the May I plenary session, Parliament is expected to vote on a legislative-initiative report proposing to repeal the 1976 European Electoral Act and replace it with a new Council Regulation on the election of the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) by direct universal suffrage. Since the first European elections in 1979, the rules applying to the election of MEPs combine the common principles established in the European Electoral Act, as modified in 2002, and the different national rules implementing them. As a result, important elements of the electoral procedure remain in the hands of the national legislatures and there is no harmonisation across the Member States.

Following the proposals in Parliament’s (26 November 2020) resolution on stocktaking of European elections, the report proposes to further harmonise the rules applicable to European elections in areas such as the age for voting or standing as a candidate; postal voting; the electoral calendar for European elections; the principles applicable to the selection of candidates, including from a gender perspective; and the electoral threshold. In addition, the report proposes to establish a common electoral system and procedure for the election of 28 MEPs in a Union-wide constituency comprising the territory of all the Member States. Once finalised by Parliament, the proposal is transmitted to the Council for its adoption, with the EP required to consent to the final text.

Versions

• April 2022: Towards new rules for European elections? (1st edition)

Proposal for a Council Regulation on the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage, repealing Council Decision (76/787/ECSC, EEC, Euratom) and the Act concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage annexed to that decision Committee responsible:Constitutional Affairs (AFCO)A9-0083/2022
4.4.2022Rapporteur:Domènec Ruiz Devesa (S&D, Spain)2020/2220(INL)Shadow rapporteurs:Sven Simon (EPP, Germany
Guy Verhofstadt (Renew, Belgium)
Damian Boeselager (Greens/EFA, Germany)
Gerolf Annemans (ID, Belgium)
Angel Dzhambazki (ECR, Bulgaria)
Leila Chaibi (The Left, France)Special legislative procedure
(Legislative initiative from
Parliament; unanimity in
Council; Parliament’s consent;
approval by all Member States) Next steps expected: Vote on the legislative initiative in plenary

Written by Philip Boucher.

The word ‘innovation’ is often used as shorthand for improved technical, economic and social processes. However, any specific innovation involves the redistribution of costs and benefits, creating winners and losers. For some, regulation of technology should be avoided in case it hinders innovation, while others see regulation as essential, to mitigate risks on the path to innovation. However, regulation and innovation are not a zero-sum game. Debates about regulatory (in)action and its impact on innovation would benefit from greater specificity about which innovation paths are considered desirable, for whom, and how policy choices would help to achieve them. This paper explores the relationship between regulation and innovation in the context of artificial intelligence (AI).

AI is a collection of technologies that have the capacity to analyse their environment and respond ‘intelligently’ with some degree of autonomy. Notoriously difficult to define, AI straddles the boundary between current and future technology. Today’s AI plays a substantial and increasing role in our personal and professional lives. In some cases, algorithms are almost visible, as they personalise news feeds, recommend products and give directions. More often, they inform (and sometimes implement) ‘upstream’ decisions in industrial, commercial and public-sector processes. Those affected can rarely understand or even examine these algorithms, although they do have profound impacts, both positive and negative. Tomorrow’s AI is often projected in wild scenarios ranging from the obsolescence of employment with health and wealth for all, to mass surveillance, disempowerment and unseen depths of inequality. More likely, we will see moderate elements of both extremes, with impacts distributed unevenly across populations, although this depends to some extent upon decisions about regulatory (in)action and the resulting innovation pathways.

Like AI, innovation is difficult to define and evaluate. While instinctively considered a good thing, any specific innovation involves the redistribution of costs and benefits in ways that are not always welcomed by everyone and may only be revealed years later. Innovation in AI is no exception. We often hear that AI regulation should be avoided in case it hinders innovation, although proponents of this approach rarely specify how this would promote an innovation path while at the same time ensuring optimal distribution of the costs and benefits involved. Following the lead of the better regulation guidelines, it is good practice to first set out desirable criteria for innovation paths and outcomes – including the distribution of costs and benefits – before examining how a range of possible regulatory approaches, including a baseline approach of no regulatory action, could help to achieve them.

In many ways, regulation has earned its bad reputation when it comes to innovation. Some heavily regulated sectors have been slow to respond to appetites and opportunities for innovation, perhaps because of inexperience or protectionism. Some regulations encouraging the adoption of ‘best available techniques’ and ‘end-of-pipe solutions’ have promoted short-term innovation at the expense of more ambitious transformative innovation. However, regulation provides the necessary preconditions to enable market access for innovations, provides firms considering major investment with certainty, and can be used to articulate ambitious visions for development. Regulation is also important in establishing the conditions and context of innovation, including as regards labour, capital, certainty and competition. There are also cases where innovation leads to disruptive social, economic or security impacts that demand regulatory responses.

In some cases, the inherited wisdom of ‘regulation hinders innovation’ may hold true. However, it is likely that a combination of carefully designed and implemented measures for at least some aspects of technology development would provide the optimal conditions for a desirable innovation path.

Anticipatory policy-making

In the context of AI, four broad approaches to the regulation-innovation relationship can be identified. Some are characterised by the ‘carrot’ of incentivising specific AI applications to reap their benefits and seize the opportunities they offer, others by the ‘stick’ of restraining specific AI applications in order to mitigate their risks. These approaches are not mutually exclusive; they can go hand in hand, alongside moments of regulatory inaction, to optimise the conditions for the preferred innovation path.

The first broad approach is to directly regulate AI innovation in order to shape how algorithms are developed and applied. ‘Carrot’ policies could include mission-oriented innovation programmes to promote ‘moonshots’ that deliver benefits far beyond what can be achieved incrementally, for example, to bypass automation of private vehicles in favour of an ambitious shared-ownership model. ‘Stick’ policies can promote innovation by responding to concerns that might inhibit potential adoption, for example, with moratoria on controversial applications such as biometric identification and lethal autonomous weapons.

The second broad approach is to shape the context in which AI is developed and adopted in order to influence the pace and direction of innovation. ‘Carrot’ measures could include boosting capital, skills, data and SME support, as well as completing the digital single market to reduce friction in terms of legal compliance, administrative burden and consumer choice. ‘Stick’ measures could include digital taxes and penalties for uncompetitive practices. Again, these stick policies can promote innovation by enhancing competition, which has a demonstrably positive link to innovation.

The third broad approach is to respond indirectly to specific outcomes and impacts as they emerge. While such measures may have a weaker influence on the pace and direction of innovation itself, they play an important role in ensuring that the innovation path remains desirable. Examples include providing a safety net for workers at risk of displacement and ensuring the continued effectiveness of measures to defend fundamental rights with regard to democratic processes, non-discrimination and consumer protection. Equitable distribution of costs and benefits, alongside protection measures for citizens and consumers, could be key conditions for the acceptability of innovation paths.

The fourth broad approach involves innovation in regulation itself, changing how policies are designed and implemented to better fit the specificities of AI. Novel approaches, such as ‘regulatory markets‘, would see firms compete to meet demands set by regulators. Temporary spaces or ‘sandboxes’ can liberate regulators and innovators to perform controlled experiments with policies and technologies and observe the results before deciding whether to scale them up. Anticipatory innovation governance also recommends early-stage experiments to establish constant feedback loops between innovation and regulation. Well-crafted regulation is not only compatible with AI innovation, but is its essential precondition. Poorly designed policy choices – including both regulation and inaction – can damage both AI development and public confidence. There are no simple solutions to complex socio-technical challenges, but there certainly are some emerging lessons for policy-makers: promote synergies, leaving behind the ‘zero-sum game’ assumption that regulation is in direct competition with innovation; take a long-term view, as restricting some developments in the short term can deliver innovation payoffs in the long term by ensuring competition, inspiring public trust or leapfrogging incremental steps; level the playing field, as a more even distribution of costs, benefits and opportunities is conducive to innovation; focus on objectives and outcomes, as AI develops more quickly than policy, so detailed prescriptions could be quickly outdated; regulate innovatively, first making use of novel approaches such as sandboxes, experiments and co-regulation, and then harmonising, to benefit from best practices, economies of scale and interoperability; recognise diversity, taking account of local and regional conditions to ensure a fairer distribution of costs, benefits and opportunities; deployinnovative procedures for public administration and procurement to improve performance, accumulate in-house expertise and promote a culture of innovation in the public sector; and promote confidence thatcitizens’ and consumers’ rights will be respected, and that firms’ regulatory environment will remain stable and supportive. Indeed, policy-makers are increasingly embracing a range of regulatory options as a means – and not a barrier – to achieve the right kind of AI innovation.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘What if AI regulation promoted innovation?‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘What if AI regulation promoted innovation?’ on YouTube.

Written by Alex Wilson and Lasse Boehm.

Russia remains Europe’s largest supplier of coal, oil, and gas. This poses a particular difficulty for the EU and its Member States, which are urgently seeking to reduce their energy dependence. This is not only necessary to pressure Russia economically to end its invasion of Ukraine, but also to prevent Russia from weaponising its energy supplies and threatening Europe’s energy security in future.   

Replacing Russian natural gas will be much more difficult than replacing oil and coal, due to differences in supply infrastructure, transportation and storage. While part of the long-term solution lies in the promotion of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency savings, the EU will nevertheless require large volumes of natural gas imports in the short and medium term.

Since most of Europe’s pipeline infrastructure is organised to import Russian gas, alternative supplies will mostly have to come by sea in the form of liquefied natural gas (LNG). To guarantee security of supply, the EU will also need to ensure gas storage levels remain high so Member States can cope with a sudden interruption of gas supplies. However, both LNG terminals and gas storage capacity are unevenly spread across Europe, with important policy implications.

There is a clear need to frontload investment to diversify supplies and fill storage, but uncertainty as to who can or should finance these changes. There is also the question of how to coordinate policy action at EU level, how to buffer against negative social and economic consequences, and how to ensure coherence of security of supply with the ‘fit for 55’ package and the European Green Deal.

Read the complete briefing on ‘EU gas storage and LNG capacity as responses to the war in Ukraine‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

LNG capacity per Member State (operational and planned) EU storage capacity (TWh)

Written by Matthew Parry and Marcin Szczepański.

The United States imposed a battery of sanctions and multilateral measures on Russia following its invasion of Ukraine, while also providing Ukraine and its EU neighbours with military, economic and humanitarian aid.

US sanctions

The US first imposed sanctions on Russia when it annexed Crimea in 2014. Further sanctions followed when Russia recognised the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk, and invaded Ukraine in February 2022:

• individual sanctions on Vladimir Putin, Sergey Lavrov, National Security Council members, oligarchs, other entities and persons evading sanctions; and visa restrictions;
• financial sanctions on businesses linked to major industries, e.g. defence, energy, diamond mining, telecommunications and transport, as well as on banks and financial institutions (asset freezes and account closures), ban of transactions with the Russian Direct Investment Fund;
• prohibition on all investment in Russia;
• prohibition on Russian aircraft and airlines entering US airspace (private and commercial);
• ban on oil, liquefied natural gas (LNG) and coal imports to US;
• export controls on technologies such as semiconductors, computers, telecommunications, lasers, and sensors and equipment for oil and gas industries, for both US exports and exports from third countries that use US inputs, such as software and equipment;
• asset blockagesfor persons, connected to media and news agencies spreading disinformation;
• similar sanctions on Belarus, covering export controls, banks, individuals and entities with links to Russia, the military sector, and its inputs and products, and trade tariffs.

Joint sanctions and comparison

Some US sanctions have been coordinated with the EU and other G7 members. A major step was to block the Russian Central Bank’s reserves and cut off many banks from the SWIFT international payment system. This was followed by limits on ‘golden passports‘ and the launch of the Russian Elites, Proxies, and Oligarchs (REPO) task force (G7 plus Australia), which seeks to find, freeze and/or confiscate the assets of sanctioned individuals. The sanctions have come in waves, but in some fields the US has gone further than the EU, which is more exposed to Russia in terms of energy supply and investment. The US has banned all new investment in Russia (the EU just in the energy sector). The US has also prohibited all coal, LNG, and oil imports (the EU only coal and other solid fossil fuels). US export controls cover both the oil and gas sectors, (the EU targets the former, plus technology and goods used for liquefaction of natural gas).

Main US and EU sanctions as of 22 April 2022 Military aid as of 25 April 2022

The US has given Ukraine over US$4 billion in military aid since 2014, with as much as US$3.7 billion of that since the war began. It has facilitated the supply of spare parts to make 20 warplanes operational, and provided Ukraine with training and lethal aid, including heavy weaponry, such as helicopters, tanks, heavy artillery, armoured personnel carriers, drones, howitzers, anti-aircraft and anti-armour systems, and also standard weapons and munitions. The US has promised to help Ukraine transition to more advanced weapons and air defence systems that are essentially NATO capable. It has shared invaluable intelligence (satellite imagery and analysis) on the Russian invasion, but stopped short of introducing a no-fly zone over Ukraine. Some EU Member States have also provided Soviet-era weapons, and received US compensation.

Humanitarian response and support for democracy and human rights

Between 2014 and 2021, the US donated more than US$351 million in humanitarian aid to Ukraine, in part to feed and house vulnerable Ukrainians, including those affected by the pandemic. Between 24 February and 24 March 2022, the US spent US$123 million to support the EU and neighbouring countries’ efforts to receive and host Ukrainian refugees, including US$48 million in Poland, US$10 million in Romania, US$9 million in Hungary, and US$4 million in Slovakia. On 24 March 2022, the Biden administration announced that it was preparing to provide refuge for ‘up to’ 100 000 Ukrainians, and was ‘prepared to provide’ more than US$1 billion in new humanitarian aid to support Ukrainians inside and outside Ukraine. However, reportedly, at the time of writing, the US has yet to establish a mechanism for resettling Ukrainians directly, with some trying to enter the US via Mexico. The Biden administration has also announced a further US$320 million in democracy and human rights funding for Ukraine and neighbouring democracies.

Contribution to European energy security

On 25 March 2022, President Biden and Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced the creation of a joint US-EU task force to diversify EU LNG supplies in alignment with shared transatlantic climate objectives, and reduce EU demand for Russian natural gas imports. As part of the first objective, the US says it will strive to increase EU imports in 2022 from the US and other international partners by at least 15 billion cubic metres (bcm), and the Commission has promised to work with Member States to lift demand for US LNG by some 50 bcm per year ‘until at least’ 2030; (in 2021, the EU imported 22 bcm of LNG from the US, and 155 bcm of all forms of natural gas from Russia). Some question the US’s ability to increase LNG exports rapidly, and the EU’s capacity to raise LNG imports, or transport them between Member States.

Prior to these announcements, members of Congress and energy industry trade groups had called on the administration to increase gas and oil exports to partners in Europe, but reportedly faced reluctance as a result of concerns about rising energy prices in the US, and trade-offs between the administration’s European energy security objectives and its ambitions to reduce US greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. On 31 March 2022, the White House announced a ‘historic release’ from the US strategic petroleum reserve of 1 million barrels per day over the following six months, amounting to some 180 million barrels in total. The EU should benefit from the resulting downward pressure on the world oil price.

Efforts in multilateral institutions

The US has also acted in multilateral institutions including the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and General Assembly (UNGA) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ); as well as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Group of Twenty (G20); often in tandem with the EU and other partners. On 25 February, one day after Russia’s invasion began, the US co-submitted a UNSC resolution demanding that Russia cease and withdraw. Russia, a permanent UNSC member, vetoed it. A similar text was put to the UNGA on 2 March, with the US voting with 140 other countries in support. On 23 March, the US and 12 other UNSC members abstained on, and so caused to fail, a Russia-proposed resolution on humanitarian access to Ukraine, objecting to language defending Russia’s invasion. On 7 April, the US joined 92 other countries in voting in the UNGA to suspend Russia from the UN’s Human Rights Council. The US welcomed a 16 March ICJ provisional order for Russia to halt its invasion, and on 23 March accused Russia of war crimes (neither the US nor Russia are parties to the ICJ statute). At the WTO, the US joined the EU and 12 other members in declaring on 14 March that they would cease to grant Russia WTO-derived trading privileges and discontinue work towards Belarus’s WTO accession. On 6 April, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen expressed the view that Russia should be expelled from the G20, and said that the US would boycott G20 meetings involving Russian officials. The White House has also coordinated a collective response from NATO to the invasion, not least by deploying additional forces to Europe, while making it clear that the alliance is not a co-belligerent.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Russia’s war on Ukraine: US response‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Clare Ferguson.

While Russia’s invasion of Ukraine continues to dominate the international headlines, Members of the European Parliament return to Strasbourg for the first plenary session in May. Members are expected to debate the implications of the war for cybersecurity and on transport in Europe, as well as on reinforcing the EU’s capacity to act to mitigate the social and economic consequences. Nevertheless, the need for an urgent European Union response to the war has not delayed (and indeed has sometimes accelerated) action on a number of other files on the agenda. A key debate is scheduled with Mario Draghi, Prime Minister of Italy, in the first of a series with Heads of State or Government. The European Commission is expected to make a statement on the ongoing hearings regarding threats to common European values in Poland and Hungary. The President of the European Council, Charles Michel, has been invited to participate in this session’s revived ‘question time’.

As every year, Members are set to carry out their democratic oversight of spending under the EU budget in a joint debate on Wednesday, when they consider 53 reports examining whether EU institutions, agencies and other bodies complied with the rules and the principles of sound financial management in their 2020 expenditure. Firstly, the Committee on Budgetary Control (CONT) recommends that Parliament grant discharge to the European Commission and to all six executive agencies, which are responsible for the bulk of EU budget spending. It also recommends granting separate discharge for the European development funds. The committee insists that the Commission act to end violations of the rule of law and to use the tools it has to make payment of EU funding conditional on respect for EU values. It also highlights the risk of a continuing gap between the high level of commitments and the amount of payments made. It makes recommendations concerning monitoring of expenditure and detection of fraud. On discharge for the other EU institutions, the CONT committee recommends postponing the decision on granting discharge for the European Council and Council, the Court of Auditors and the Economic and Social Committee, and indicates it would table new reports within six months. The committee decries the European Council and Council’s refusal to disclose how it has spent EU taxpayers’ money, a situation that persists since 2009. It also criticises the European Council’s interference in the legislative process, when it has no legislative role. The committee demands clarification of payment of allowances at the Court of Auditors, following media reports of misuse. It also criticises the re-appointment of a member investigated for harassment to the Economic and Social Committee. The committee further proposes that Parliament grant discharge to 9 joint undertakings and 31 of the 32 EU decentralised agencies, where action has largely been taken to remedy previous shortcomings. It wishes to postpone the decision on the European Border and Coast Guard Agency until the agency has addressed the findings of an EU Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) investigation regarding harassment, misconduct and migrant pushbacks, and has shared the outcome with Parliament.

On Monday evening, Parliament is scheduled to consider a proposal which would strengthen limits on the use of certain harmful chemicals. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety proposes stricter limits than in the Commission’s proposal for persistent organic pollutants (carbon-based chemicals that get into our bodies through the food chain) in waste. The committee proposes stronger restrictions on chemicals found in incinerated waste, pesticides, water and fireproofing, aiming for a toxic-free environment. The vote in plenary would set Parliament’s position for negotiations with the Council on the proposal.

Balancing the need to protect citizens and to encourage innovation in the digital era is tricky. Looking to the future, Parliament set up its Special Committee on Artificial Intelligence in a Digital Age (AIDA) in 2020, to investigate the challenges of deploying AI technologies and to analyse their impact on the EU economy. The committee has now completed its work and, on Tuesday morning, Members are expected to consider its final report on the potential opportunities and risks as well as measures to ensure the EU becomes a global leader in AI. The report concludes with an urgent call for action to promote a human-centric, trustworthy and inclusive approach to AI, based on fundamental rights, that manages risks while taking full advantage of the benefits.

New technologies are also altering the security domain, providing both an opportunity to enhance EU action to counter serious crime and terrorism and a challenge to protecting personal data. On Tuesday afternoon, Parliament is set to vote on the provisional agreement resulting from interinstitutional negotiations on the proposal to strengthen Europol‘s mandate. While Parliament’s Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) committee supports the proposal, it calls for stronger safeguards, democratic oversight and accountability. If agreed, the proposal will reinforce cooperation with private parties and third countries, encourage research and innovation at Europol, and improve the rules on how the law enforcement agency deals with both data analysis and protection.

Finally, on Monday evening, Members are expected to debate a Committee on Constitutional Affairs report proposing to further harmonise the national rules on European elections. While the rules on eligibility and accessibility are not the same in every EU country at present, revising them would also offer an opportunity to create a Union-wide constituency. This would give citizens two votes (one national, one Union-wide), electing 28 Members to the European Parliament – under strict requirements – through transnational electoral lists and a uniform electoral system. Once the Parliament has adopted its formal proposal, that is transmitted to the Council, which would adopt the new rules, following the Parliament’s consent on the final text. Once adopted, the new regulation would also need to be ratified by each Member State before it can come into force.

Written by Karin Jacobs.

With its Climate Law, the EU has set itself the target of reducing its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by at least 55 % by 2030, and aims for climate neutrality by 2050. Of the maritime sector’s CO2 emissions, between and 6 and 7 % are generated at berth in ports in the European Economic Area. This calls for a strong focus on the greening of shipping, making port services sustainable and infrastructure for alternative fuels available. In parallel, key maritime and inland ports on the trans-European transport network (TEN-T) need to adapt to the role of strategic multimodal nodes and clean energy hubs.

Fit for 55 proposals: Implications for ports

In July 2021, to align the EU economy with the European Green Deal and the sustainable and smart mobility strategy, the European Commission put forward a first set of legislative proposals, the fit for 55 package. The proposals are interlinked and several have implications for ports. These concern maritime fuels, fuels infrastructure, emissions trading, and energy taxation. In November 2021, the Council reacted by demanding further guidance on the proposals’ overall ambition, and an assessment of their joint impact.

The proposed FuelEU Maritime regulation aims to boost the production and uptake of sustainable, low-carbon fuels in maritime transport, and obliges ships to use on-shore power supply (OPS); ports are expected to facilitate both. The rules apply to ships of more than 5 000 gross tonnes (GT), regardless of their flag. From 2025, limits would be introduced on the carbon intensity of the energy used by vessels, covering around 90 % of the emissions generated. From January 2030, ships staying for more than two hours in a port would have to connect to OPS, unless they used another zero-emission technology. Responsibility would lie with the shipping companies. Non-compliance would lead to penalties, which would feed into an innovation fund to finance the production of renewable maritime fuels and other greening actions in the sector. The investment in the port infrastructure needed will be port-specific and depend on the size and type of traffic. The Commission estimates the total cost of investment in alternative fuels infrastructure over the 2025-2050 period at €9.9 billion: €2.5 billion for hydrogen infrastructure and €7.4 billion for OPS.

Until recently, there was little reliable data to quantify the emissions savings achievable with OPS. However, a 2021 study on CO2 emissions data collected through the EU monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) system shows significant potential savings if the replacement electricity were clean. Italy would have the highest savings in absolute terms (487 kilotonnes (kt)), Sweden the highest reduction in relativesavedshare (99 %). For oil-reliant countries (e.g. Greece, Cyprus) or coal-dominated ones (e.g. Poland, Estonia), the reduced share is low or negative (Figure 1).

Amount of CO2 emissions saved (absolute and relative) in coastal Member States, by using OPS

The proposed regulation on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure seeks to ensure the availability of a dense alternative fuels network, including liquefied natural gas (LNG) at EU ports. It requires that, by the beginning of 2030, at least 90 % of demand for OPS be met in TEN-T maritime ports, and sets requirements for OPS for inland waterway vessels at berth. With containerships, cruise ships and passenger ferries using OPS, both greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution in and near ports should decrease. Furthermore, EU Member States would have to install LNG refuelling points in maritime TEN-T ports, and jointly ensure LNG coverage for seagoing ships to circulate throughout the TEN-T network by 2025.

The EU emissions trading system (ETS) is the cornerstone of the EU’s policy to combat climate change and reduce GHG emissions cost-effectively. The proposed ETS review seeks to align the ETS with the EU Climate Law. While requirements for the current ETS sectors will be strengthened, the Commission is proposing to further reduce emission allowances and extend the ETS to the maritime sector by including ships of 5 000 GT and more. The system would cover all energy used in European ports and consumed during voyages between them, and 50 % of the energy used during journeys between EU ports and those in a third country. Penalties from the ETS would feed into an innovation fund targeting climate action. Half of ETS revenues would need to be spent on climate action by Member States, and could also go into the innovation fund. Once the International Maritime Organisation develops a global pricing mechanism, the ETS would be aligned.

With the revision of the Energy Taxation Directive, the Commission has proposed to tax fuels according to their energy content and environmental performance instead of their volume. Fossil fuels, such as those used as bunker fuels in vessels, will no longer be exempt from taxation in EU ports, but will remain untaxed in ports outside of the EU. From 2023, taxes would be introduced over a 10-year period, requiring sufficient market uptake of alternative fuels. Taxation laws, such as this proposal, require unanimity of EU Member States. Other recent Commission legislative proposals affecting EU ports concern the taxonomy rules, defining economic activities that contribute to climate action, and the revised TEN-T guidelines. These legislative proposals need to be negotiated between the European Parliament and Council.

European Parliament views

In its October 2018 resolution on deployment of infrastructure for alternative fuels in the EU, the Parliament called on the Commission to support the decarbonisation of the maritime sector, with a clear focus on innovation, digitisation and adaptation of ports and ships. It also supported the deployment of OPS at both inland and maritime ports. A January 2020 resolution on the Green Deal welcomed the proposal to review the Alternative Fuels Directive, calling on Member States to commit to proper funding and step up the pace for the deployment of innovative strategies, charging infrastructure and alternative fuels at national level.

Ports’ priorities

To implement the changes spelled out in the proposals, ports will need sufficient funding. European Sea Ports (ESPO) asked for better alignment of the FuelEU Maritime and alternative fuels infrastructure regulation (AFIR) proposals, and to ensure a return on OPS investments, conditioned by its mandatory use, possibly accompanied by an EU-wide permanent tax exemption for OPS. The scope of OPS should take into account prioritisation of busy terminals. ESPO also proposed to extend the taxation on bunkering outside of the EU, to safeguard an international level playing field for EU ports. In their view, the ETS should be extended to prevent evasive calls in the neighbouring non-EU ports, and ETS revenues should be re-invested solely in the greening of the sector. Inland navigation stakeholders’ concerns focus on providing OPS under AFIR. For ESPO, the existing grids at inland ports will not be able to address the demands for electricity, making the 2030 target unfeasible. Inland ports insist that OPS should be taxation-free, and seek further EU financial support, including additional funding for port reforms.

Outlook

While the delivery of the European Green Deal remains high on the EU’s political agenda, the war in Ukraine could slow down legislative negotiations, and the expected developments and investments. Energy security imperatives could redefine the requirements, linked to energy supply, including the acceptance of (bio) LNG as a globally available transition fuel. The closure of ports in Ukraine has already disrupted European supply chains, and could further exacerbate pandemic-related congestion at terminals, also putting maritime safety and security at risk. Furthermore, EU ports may have to face the need to apply EU sanctions against Russian-linked vessels, as proposed in the latest sanction package This could be reflected in the forthcoming review of maritime safety rules, for instance in terms of port state control.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘European ports becoming ‘fit for 55’‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Alex Wilson (1st edition).

The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 has triggered serious concerns about EU energy security. The problem is particularly acute in the gas sector, where Russia is the leading third-country supplier, on which several Member States are heavily dependent. To ensure the EU is prepared for the risk of an interruption of gas supplies next winter, the Commission has proposed an urgent regulation on gas storage, requiring Member States to: fill in at least 80 % of their storage capacity by 1 November 2022 (rising to 90 % in subsequent years); carry out the certification of all gas storage system operators; and provide a 100 % tariff discount on entry and exit points into gas storage.

The Commission has suggested that this regulation be agreed under an expedited procedure by the Parliament and the Council, so that it can start taking full effect from summer 2022. The ITRE committee decided to call for use of the urgent procedure (Rule 163) without a committee report, and appointed a negotiating team of MEPs to enter immediately into interinstitutional negotiations with the Council and the Commission. This decision was endorsed during the April plenary session of the European Parliament.

EU storage capacity (TWh) Versions

• April 2022: New EU regulation on gas storage (1st edition)

Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1938 concerning measures to safeguard the security of gas supply and Regulation (EC) No 2009/715 on conditions for access to natural gas transmission networks Committee responsible:Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE)COM(2022) 135
23.3.2022Negotiating team:Jerzy Buzek (EPP, Poland), coordinator
Patrizia Toia (S&D, Italy)
Klemen Grošelj (Renew, Slovenia)
Marie Toussaint (Greens/EFA, France)
Paolo Borchia (ID, Italy)
Zdzislaw Krasnodębski (ECR, Poland)
Sandra Pereira (The Left, Portugal)2022/0090(COD)

Ordinary legislative procedure (COD)
(Parliament and Council on
equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Next steps expected:

Written by Katrien Luyten.

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, over 3.4 million people have already been forced to seek refuge, mostly in neighbouring countries. The European Commission estimates that Russia aggression may have displaced up to 6.5 million people. In response, the European Union swiftly decided to grant EU-wide temporary protection to people arriving from Ukraine.

The EU Temporary Protection Directive (Directive 2001/55/EC) enables EU Member States to move rapidly to offer protection and rights to people in need of immediate protection and to avoid overwhelming national asylum systems in cases of mass arrivals of displaced persons. Although invoked several times in the past, the directive has never been activated before. Russia’s military aggression prompted a unanimous decision in the Council to grant temporary protection (for an initial period of one year) to people fleeing the war in Ukraine. This temporary protection may be extended automatically by two six-monthly periods, for a maximum of another year.

The EU’s decision to grant temporary protection has been widely welcomed and the directive is considered the most appropriate instrument under the current exceptional circumstances. There are, however, still many open questions as to its practical implementation in the EU Member States. The scale of the arrivals entails many immediate as well as longer-term challenges. On the other hand, and in spite of accusations of double standards in favour of ‘white’ or ethnic European refugees, the demonstrations of EU-wide solidarity with the Ukrainian people raise hopes for concrete progress on overall reform of the EU’s migration and asylum rules. At the time of writing, the conflict has already caused civilian casualties and the destruction of hospitals, schools and other civilian infrastructure, creating a humanitarian catastrophe both within Ukraine and beyond its borders.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Temporary protection directive‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘Temporary protection directive‘ on YouTube.

Written by Tarja Laaninen.

The European Commission is planning to establish ‘nutrient profiles’, that is, maximum amounts for nutrients such as fat, sugar and/or salt in foods, above which the use of nutrition or health claims would be restricted or forbidden. For example, breakfast cereals exceeding a sugar limit could no longer advertise their fibre or vitamin content.

The Commission was already tasked with setting nutrient profiles to restrict the promotion of food high in fat, sugar and/or salt under the Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation (‘Claims Regulation’) adopted in 2006. Now, in accordance with the action plan accompanying the EU’s ‘farm to fork’ strategy, the Commission will submit a proposal on nutrient profiles by the end of 2022. The proposal will form part of a wider package revising EU legislation on food information supplied to consumers, together with proposals on front-of-pack nutrition labelling, origin labelling, date marking, and labelling of alcoholic beverages.

In the same package, the Commission also intends to solve a problem that has long been puzzling manufacturers and consumers in the herbal and plant products market, namely, that the same product can be classified both as a herbal medicine and as a food, depending on the Member State in which it is sold.

While most consumer organisations and health advocates strongly support the idea of introducing nutrient profiles, opponents caution against overly simplistic labels that punish certain food groups and lead health-conscious individuals to avoid them. The European Parliament has stressed that food information is a potent tool for empowering consumers.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Nutrient profiles: A ‘farm to fork’ strategy initiative takes shape‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Costica Dumbrava (1st edition).

In December 2021, the European Commission presented a proposal to amend the Schengen Borders Code, which lays down the rules governing controls at the EU internal and external borders. While debates on the reform of Schengen have been going on for a while, recent challenges related to the coronavirus pandemic on the one hand, and attempts to instrumentalise migrants as a way to put pressure on the EU’s external borders, on the other, have created new momentum for reform.

The Commission’s proposal aims to improve the Schengen system’s resilience to serious threats, and to adapt it to new challenges. It introduces a new coordination mechanism to deal with health threats at the external borders and a new Schengen safeguard mechanism to provide a common response at the internal borders in situations of threats affecting Member States, including the possibility to directly transfer irregular migrants apprehended at the internal borders back to the competent authorities in the EU country from which it is assumed they just came, without undergoing an individual assessment.

The proposal, which falls under the ordinary legislative procedure, is at the initial stage of the legislative process. In the European Parliament, the proposal has been assigned to the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE). Preliminary discussions have also taken place in the Council.

Versions

• April 2022: Revision of the Schengen Borders Code (1st edition)

Proposal for a Regulation amending Regulation (EU) 2016/399 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders Committee responsible:Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE)COM(2021) 891
14.12.2021Rapporteur:Sylvie Guillaume (S&D, France)2021/0428(COD)Shadow rapporteurs:Sara Skyttedal (EPP, Sweden)
Malik Azmani (Renew, Netherlands)
Erik Marquardt (Greens/EFA, Germany)
Patryk Jaki (ECR, Poland)
Pernando Barrena Arza (The Left, Spain)Ordinary legislative procedure
(COD) (Parliament and Council
on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Publication of draft report

Written by David de Groot.

Since 2014, the European Parliament and European Commission have been calling on Member States not to grant citizenship in return for investment in the country concerned. Following the invasion of Ukraine by Russian military forces, these calls have intensified, with Member States now being urged to withdraw such citizenship when it has been granted to Russian or Belarusian nationals who are on the sanctions list or support the invasion.

Russian nationals and citizenship or residence by investment schemes

Three Member States (Bulgaria, Cyprus and Malta) currently offer schemes granting nationality on the basis of a financial investment (citizenship by investment (CBI) schemes – or ‘golden passports’). Twelve Member States (Cyprus, Estonia, Greece, Spain, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands and Portugal) offer schemes granting residence permits on the basis of investments (residence by investment (RBI) schemes – or ‘golden visas’).

An October 2021 EPRS study estimated that, between 2011 and 2019, over 132 000 people secured residence or citizenship in EU Member States by means of CBI or RBI schemes. However, for many schemes it is unclear who the beneficiaries are. While Russian nationals are not the biggest group on the global citizenship market, this is different in Cyprus and Malta, where they account for over 50 and 40 %, respectively, of naturalisations granted on the basis of CBI schemes.

In contrast to the above, in the EU – as far as information is available – there has generally been little take-up of RBI schemes by Russian nationals. The exception is Latvia, where the vast majority of approvals originate from Russia. This particular programme has, however, seen a steep decline in admissions since 2014. Most RBI scheme approvals nowadays occur in Greece, Portugal and Spain, where the percentages of Russian applications are lower.

Rethinking policy on golden passports and visas

In a joint statement of 26 February 2022, the European Commission, France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States, committed, not least, to take ‘measures to limit the sale of citizenship – so called golden passports – that let wealthy Russians connected to the Russian government become citizens of our countries and gain access to our financial systems’.

On 2 March 2022, Malta announced that it had suspended, until further notice, the processing of applications from nationals of the Russian Federation and Belarus. Similarly on 24 March 2022, the Bulgarian Parliament adopted amendments to the Bulgarian Citizenship Act, abolishing the citizenship by investment scheme and requiring a review of previous naturalisations granted.

In a resolution of 9 March 2022, calling on the Commission to make specific legislative proposals on citizenship and residence by investment schemes (2021/2026(INL)), the European Parliament welcomed the commitment announced by the Member States to take measures to limit the sale of citizenship to Russian nationals connected to the Russian government. Nevertheless, Parliament called upon all Member States to stop operating their CBI and RBI schemes for all Russian applicants with immediate effect. It also urged Member States to: reassess all applications from Russian nationals approved over the past few years; exploit all possibilities under national and EU law to ensure that no Russian individual with financial, business or other links to the Putin regime retains their citizenship and residency rights; and temporarily block such individuals from exercising those rights. Parliament also called on the Commission to verify any such reassessments carried out by Member States and to present, as a matter of urgency, a legislative proposal to ban CBI schemes completely and to ban RBI schemes for Russian nationals who are subject to targeted measures.

On 28 March 2022, the European Commission issued a recommendation urging Member States to immediately repeal any existing investor citizenship schemes and to ensure strong checks are in place to address the risks posed by investor residence schemes.

The Commission also recommended that where a person concerned:

• is or becomes subject to EU restrictive measures, or
• where it is otherwise determined that the person concerned significantly supports, by any means, the war in Ukraine or other related activities of the Russian government or the Lukashenko regime that breach international law,

the Member State concerned should immediately assess, in accordance with the principles resulting from the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (C-135/08 Rottmann, C-221/17 Tjebbes), including the principle of proportionality and the protection of fundamental rights, whether naturalisation should be withdrawn from these individuals.

Equally, where such a person had acquired a residence permit on the basis of an RBI scheme, the Commission recommended that such a residence permit should be withdrawn or not renewed.

Member States were also asked to report on the implementation of the recommendation by the end of May, and to keep the Commission informed on a regular basis from May onwards.

On 6 April 2022, the European Commission sent a reasoned opinion to Malta (INFR(2020)2301) regarding its investor citizenship scheme. This is the final stage before the infringement procedure would be referred to the Court of Justice. The Commission considered that the granting of EU citizenship in return for pre-determined payments or investments, without any ‘genuine link’ to the Member State concerned, was in breach of EU law.

On 7 April 2022, after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had addressed the Cypriot Parliament calling for an end to the sale of citizenship to Russian nationals, the Cypriot President, Nicos Anastasiades, told reporters that instructions had been given for the revocation of four passports of Russians on the EU’s sanctions list.

Rules applicable to the withdrawal of nationality

According to the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, when a Member State withdraws its nationality from a person, and as a result EU citizenship, it must make an individual assessment as to the consequences of this loss and the proportionality of the measure. Furthermore, such a withdrawal must – in principle – not lead to statelessness. This rule is laid down in international conventions, for instance under Article 7 of the European Convention on Nationality.

The same Article 7 also sets out the cases in which nationality may be withdrawn, by operation of law or at the initiative of a state party. These include:

‘b) acquisition of the nationality of the State Party by means of fraudulent conduct, false information or concealment of any relevant fact attributable to the applicant;

c) voluntary service in a foreign military force;

d) conduct seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the State Party;’

These same grounds have been invoked in recent years for the withdrawal of nationality from terrorists, where the requirement of preventing statelessness resulted in the provisions targeting dual nationals, making the citizenship of dual citizens less secure than that of single-nationality citizens and raising questions about citizenship equality. Similarly, distinguishing between naturalised citizens and native citizens for the purpose of citizenship deprivation leads to the creation of different classes of citizens.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Russia’s war on Ukraine: Reassessing ‘citizenship by investment’ schemes‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Sebastian Clapp.

NATO has condemned Russia’s war on Ukraine in the strongest possible terms, and calls it ‘the biggest security threat in a generation’. The Alliance calls on Russia to cease hostilities immediately, withdraw all its forces from Ukraine and work towards a peaceful diplomatic solution. To avoid direct confrontation with Russia, NATO has made clear that it will not deploy forces to Ukraine, which is not a NATO member, nor will it enforce a no-fly zone over Ukraine. The delivery of weapons and equipment to Ukraine (by individual NATO Allies) and the imposition of unprecedented sanctions are being organised predominantly outside the NATO framework. In order to deter further Russian aggression and reassure its Allies, NATO has substantially enhanced its own deterrence posture, with large deployments of troops and equipment to the eastern flank of the Alliance’s territory.

NATO response to Russia’s war on Ukraine

Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, NATO held three extraordinary meetings within a few weeks: meetings of defence ministers, and foreign ministers – both with the participation of partners – and an extraordinary NATO summit. NATO leaders called the Russian war on Ukraine the ’gravest threat to Euro-Atlantic security in decades’ and condemned the invasion in the strongest possible terms. They stressed that Russia must immediately stop the invasion and withdraw its forces from Ukraine. Allies reiterated their resolve in countering Russia’s attempts to destroy the foundations of international security and stability, and to defend its 30 Allies and ‘every inch of Allied territory’. NATO reiterated that it is united and resolute in opposing Russian aggression, and underlined its iron-clad commitment to Article 5, the Alliance’s collective defence clause. The Alliance also condemned Russia’s decision to recognise the separatist regions of eastern Ukraine, and emphasised that it stands with the people of Ukraine and its legitimate, democratically elected president, parliament and government. Allies called on Russia to engage constructively in credible negotiations. NATO also reaffirmed its commitment to NATO’s open door policy. In December 2021, Moscow had issued demands in the form of draft security pacts to the United States and NATO, demanding NATO pull back troops from eastern Europe and cease its open door policy for future members, including Ukraine, which the US and NATO rejected.

NATO support measures for Ukraine following the Russian war on Ukraine

The delivery of weapons and military equipment, as well as the imposition of sanctions, is taking place outside the NATO framework. NATO has repeatedly emphasised its role as a defensive alliance, and that it is not seeking a war with Russia. It has ruled out enforcing a no-fly zone over Ukraine, which would risk the crisis escalating and spilling over into a wider European conflict involving NATO Allies, or even potentially leading to World War III, although experts believe that the latter is unlikely. NATO has also reiterated that it will not deploy forces to Ukraine. At the same time, NATO has warned Russia that it must stop its ‘nuclear sabre-rattling’ and that any use of chemical weapons will have far-reaching consequences. NATO’s strategy has thus been ‘a careful balancing of its defensive mission, its credibility and the need to avoid escalation’. NATO says that it is assisting in the coordination of requests for assistance and supporting Allies in the delivery of humanitarian and non-lethal aid, however details on this are unclear. NATO has also repeatedly expressed support for the delivery of weapons and military equipment to Ukraine by individual NATO Allies. Allies such as the United Kingdom, United States, Canada and EU Member States have provided Ukraine with weapons and equipment. Following a tasking from NATO leaders, at the meeting of foreign ministers on 6-7 April, NATO agreed to further strengthen and sustain support to Ukraine. Allies agreed to do more when it comes to weapons and military support. NATO committed to enhancing practical support to regional partners, including Georgia (e.g. on cyber and situational awareness) and Bosnia and Herzegovina (new defence capacity-building package), but also to increase practical and political cooperation with Asia-Pacific partners (Australia, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand) on issues such as countering disinformation and cyber-threats. Ministers agreed that NATO’s next Strategic Concept (adoption of which is planned at the Madrid Summit in June 2022) must set guidelines for NATO’s future relationship with Russia and provide a roadmap for the Alliance’s adaptation to a more volatile and competitive world.

NATO relations with Ukraine
Ukraine is not a NATO member. While NATO had assured Ukraine in 2008 that it would one day join NATO, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy recently acknowledged that Ukraine will not seek NATO membership, a fact that has been ‘implicitly true’ for a long time, due to opposition from several NATO Allies stemming from a fear of escalating tensions with Russia. In fact, Ukraine was never offered a Membership Action Plan, a key step in the NATO accession process. Despite this, NATO maintains its open-door policy, as any reversal on the matter would breach its founding treaty (Article 10), violate the principles of the European security order and assign blame to NATO enlargement for escalating tensions. Relations with Ukraine date back to 1991, when it joined the North Atlantic Cooperation Council. In 1994, Ukraine joined Partnership for Peace, a practical bilateral cooperation programme with NATO. In 1997, the NATO-Ukraine Commission (NUC) was established, to oversee Ukraine’s ‘Euro-Atlantic integration process’. Under its direction, areas of cooperation include, inter alia, building capabilities, including cyber, interoperability measures, training, security and defence reform and exercise participation, with the aim of enhancing Ukraine’s ability to defend itself. Ukraine actively contributes to NATO-led operations and missions: most recently Ukrainian special forces were commended for their role in evacuating 96 Ukrainians and Afghans at high risk from Kabul. In recognition of its strong commitment to NATO, Ukraine became one of six Enhanced Opportunities Partners (alongside Australia, Finland, Georgia, Jordan and Sweden) in 2020, granting it enhanced access to interoperability programmes, exercises and information-sharing. NATO deterrence measures within the Alliance

NATO has significantly enhanced its defence and deterrence measures in response to Russia’s war on Ukraine, through the deployment of elements of the NATO Response Force, a multinational rapid-response force. As a result of substantial reinforcement by NATO Allies, there are currently 40 000 troops under direct NATO command stationed on the eastern flank of the Alliance. Additionally, 130 allied fighter jets and 140 allied ships are in the region, as well as national deployments of troops and weapons by Allies, including the UK, the US, Canada and European allies. Most significantly, US deployments of troops and equipment, such as Patriot missiles, to Europe have been stepped up, with 15 000 more US soldiers since February 2022, bringing the number of US troops stationed in Europe (including western Europe) to a total of 100 000. At the extraordinary NATO Summit on 24 March, leaders agreed to form four further multinational battlegroups, in Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia, bringing the total to eight. This deployment constitutes the ‘biggest reinforcement of Alliance collective defence in a generation’. NATO’s rapid reinforcement strategy ensures that these can be strengthened quickly. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg recently announced that NATO is working to transform the Alliance’s presence in the east to a large, permanent military presence. NATO had already decided in 2014 to enhance its deterrence posture in the east, following Russia’s annexation of Crimea. And at the 2016 Warsaw Summit, it decided to increase NATO’s forward presence on its eastern flank, an important component of NATO’s deterrence and defence posture and reassurance measure. In 2017 the first four multinational battlegroups were deployed to Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.

European Parliament position

In an extraordinary plenary session, on 1 March, addressed by President Zelenskyy, Parliament adopted a resolution in which it noted that NATO remains the foundation of the collective defence of the Member States who are NATO allies, and welcomed the unity of the EU and NATO in facing Russian aggression. Parliament encouraged the strengthening of NATO’s enhanced forward presence on the eastern borders, and underlined the need to increase NATO’s collective deterrence posture, preparedness and resilience. Parliament welcomed the activation of NATO’s defence plan as well as the activation of the NATO response forces and their partial deployment in addition to troop deployments from NATO Allies. Parliament encouraged Member States to increase defence budgets, develop more effective capabilities and fully utilise joint EU efforts to strengthen NATO’s European pillar, which increases both NATO and EU security. In 2021, Parliament had adopted a resolution on EU-NATO cooperation, in which it welcomed the intensified cooperation with NATO since the 2016 Warsaw Joint Declaration and 2018 Brussels Joint Declaration, and emphasised that a strong EU-NATO partnership is vital to address the security challenges faced by both organisations. The EP also called on the EU to keep deepening its important partnership with NATO, and noted that, for Member States that are NATO Allies, NATO remains the cornerstone of collective defence.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Russia’s war on Ukraine: NATO response‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.