European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© Leigh Prather / Adobe Stock

As the second wave of the coronavirus pandemic appears to be peaking in Europe, governments and citizens are buoyed by the successful human trials of several vaccines which their producers hope to be able to distribute broadly over the coming months. There is a growing expectation that, as these vaccines start to become available to the general public in coming months, daily life may gradually return to normal, or at least to a ‘new normal’, during the course of 2021. Meanwhile, many regions of the world continue in some form of lockdown to stave off the second wave. The political debate on health policy is currently focussed on not only priorities for distributing the vaccine in the advanced economies, such as those of the EU, but on how to make it available to poorer countries too, as scientists underline that the virus knows no borders.

This note offers links to recent commentaries, studies and reports from major international think tanks on pandemic-related issues. Earlier think tank studies on the issue can be found in the ‘What Think Tanks are Thinking’ of 10 November.

Managing the unimaginable
Friends of Europe, December 2020

Meeting the healthcare needs of chronic patients: Lessons to learn from the Covid-19 pandemic
Friends of Europe, November 2020

Covid-19 is ushering in a new era in geopolitics: We must embrace it
Friends of Europe, November 2020

How African tech reinvented universal income to combat Covid-19
Friends of Europe, November 2020

Course aux vaccins contre le Covid-19: Quels enjeux géopolitiques?
Institut des relations internationales et stratégiques, November 2020

Les conséquences économiques du Covid-19 et ses enjeux géopolitiques
Institut des relations internationales et stratégiques, November 2020

Covid-19: Des vaccins sous le sapin?
Institut des relations internationales et stratégiques, November 2020

The scarring effect of Covid-19: Youth unemployment in Europe
Bruegel, November 2020

Grading the big pandemic test
Bruegel, November 2020

Europe is losing competitiveness in global value chains while China surges
Bruegel, November 2020

Covid-19 could leave another generation of young people on the scrapheap
Bruegel, November 2020

Covid-19 révèle la solitude stratégique de l’Europe
Institut français des relations internationales, November 2020

Les opinions publiques européennes à l’égard de la Chine au temps de la Covid-19: Différences et points communs à travers le continent
Institut français des relations internationales, November 2020

French public opinion on China in the age of Covid-19: Political distrust trumps economic opportunities
Institut français des relations internationales, November 2020

A Democratic tour de force: How the Korean State successfully limited the spread of Covid-19
Institut français des relations internationales, November 2020

Europeanising health policy in times of coronationalism
Clingendael, November 2020

The effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on US and European commitment to the multilateral economic order
Instituto Affari Internazionali, November 2020

The Aftermath: American power after Covid-19
Instituto Affari Internazionali, November 2020

Covid-19 and the foreign policy perceptions of US public and elites
Instituto Affari Internazionali, November 2020

The pandemic, digitisation and international trade: New challenges for the G20
Istituto per gli Studi di Politica Internazionale, November 2020

After the pandemic: Global overheating to take centre stage at T20 and G20
Istituto per gli Studi di Politica Internazionale, November 2020

The skill challenges posed by Covid-19
Centre for European Policy Studies, November 2020

The insurance properties of common debt issuance
Centre for European Policy Studies, November 2020

Tracking European solidarity during Covid-19: Lessons from the first wave
European Council on Foreign Relations, November 2020

Bubble trouble: Estonia and the coronavirus crisis
European Council on Foreign Relations, November 2020

Latvia during Covid: How success bred complacency
European Council on Foreign Relations, October 2020

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

Home for thanksgiving: How holidays may present a public health threat
Council on Foreign Relations, November 2020

Reflections on the election in pandemic America
Council on Foreign Relations, November 2020

Improving pandemic preparedness: Lessons from Covid-19
Council on Foreign Relations, November 2020

Télétravail: Qu’apporte le nouvel accord conclu par les partenaires sociaux ?
Institute Montaigne, November 2020

Covid-19: La réponse des plateformes en ligne face à l’ultradroite
Fondation pour l’innovation politique, November 2020

Covid, trade, the G20, WTO and Oscar Wilde
European Centre for International Political Economy, November 2020

Six aspects of daily life rapidly changed by Covid-19
Chatham House, November 2020

Why the pandemic and populism still work together
Chatham House, November 2020

Reimagining the global economy for a post-COVID-19 world
Brookings Institution, November 2020

How to address inequality exposed by the Covid-19 pandemic
Brookings Institution, November 2020

Coronavirus pandemic
Fundacion Real Instituto Elcano, November 2020

La crise de la Covid19 pourrait conduire à revoir la place du militaire dans les priorités budgétaires
Groupe de Recherche et d’Information sur la Paix et la Sécurité, November 2015

How to use data for the public interest, even – or especially – in a pandemic
Heinrich Böll Stiftung, November 2020

Government in a pandemic
Cato, November 2020

Protecting democracy and public health from online disinformation
German Marshall Fund, November 2020

A public sector view of tech, inclusion, and participation during the coronavirus
German Marshall Fund, October 2020

Can the EU solve the budget and rule-of-law crisis?
Carnegie Europe, October 2020

Coronavirus tracking apps: Normalizing surveillance during states of emergency
Carnegie Europe, October 2020

Brexit and Covid-19 are a toxic mix
Centre for European Reform, October 2020

The Covid crisis, an opportunity for a ‘new multilateralism’?
Confrontations Europe, October 2020

Recovering from the pandemic: An appraisal of lessons learned
Fondation Européenne d’Etudes Progressistes, October 2020

Covid: Faute d’avoir mis à profit les six derniers mois, l’État sacrifie nos libertés
Institut Thomas More, October 2020

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

Written by Jana Titievskaia, Carla Stamegna, Vadim Kononenko, Cecilia Navarra and Klemen Zumer,

© European Union, 2020

The period from the fall of the Berlin Wall to the global financial crisis of 2007 marked an era of fast-growing interdependence between different economies and cultures, brought about by cross-border movements of people, goods, services, capital and data. Far from being the first ‘globalisation’ wave, it is considered to be a period of ‘hyperglobalisation’. The decade which followed the financial crisis of 2007-2008 was marked by a slowdown in global interconnectedness. In 2019, the term ‘slowbalisation’ spread, to signify the waning of globalisation as we know it. For instance, international trade and investment relative to gross domestic product (GDP) started to decline. Supply chains began to contract after years of global outsourcing and offshoring. In terms of international cooperation and multilateralism, the pace of the world’s economic integration waned. For some governments, notably the Trump administration in the United States of America (USA), it is no longer evident that international institutions such as the World Trade Organization or the World Health Organization are fit for purpose. Rising nationalist and populist leaders in several parts of the world began questioning the ideological doxas of globalism and, in some cases, neoliberalism. Nevertheless, globalisation in other areas, such as international data flows, migration and tourism, continued to expand, indicating that perhaps globalisation was merely changing shape. In 2020, the coronavirus pandemic dealt a profound shock to global trade, investment and travel. The disruption to the physical movement of people, goods and services brought about by the pandemic has been so severe that the thesis of ‘slowbalisation’ merits thorough analysis.

Globalisation has been evolving over time, becoming increasingly complex and multi-faceted. In this paper, five pathways of globalisation have been selected to illustrate the contrasting ways in which global integration has been slowing down, accelerating or continuing. Each exhibits a different development pattern:

• Cross-border trade in goods and services slowed in terms of volume and relative to GDP, in spite of record low average tariffs. This slowdown can be traced to variation in supply chains, accounting principles, escalating protectionism, and most recently Covid‑19.
• Global financial openness slowed after the financial crisis in terms of cross-border capital flows and bank lending. However, international regulatory cooperation in the realm of global finance continued to increase, only recently showing a trend towards some reversal.
• Deepening inequality has been a by-product of hyperglobalisation, has continued during the slowbalisation phase, and is likely to continue after Covid‑19. The causes are rooted in government policies affecting income distribution, including taxation and the strength of multinational corporations.
• Globalisation of social interactions, reflected in rates of tourism and migration, did not slow until the sudden arrival of the Covid‑19 pandemic.
• International digital exchanges, measured by cross-border data flows, have continued expanding throughout the ‘slowbalisation’ period. Social distancing and restrictions on international travel are likely to accelerate globalisation in the digital realm.

As a result of the Covid‑19 crisis, the future could be one of patchy globalisation, characterised by more immaterial exchanges, and posing further challenges to the future of global governance and international cooperation. The EU could lead the way towards a more sustainable and considered form of globalisation in each of these realms.

Read the complete ‘in-depth analysis’ on ‘Slowing down or changing track? Understanding the dynamics of ‘Slowbalisation’‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

 

Written by Ivana Katsarova,

The International Day of Persons with Disabilities has been marked every 3 December since 1992 to promote awareness and mobilise support for critical issues relating to the inclusion of persons with disabilities in society and development. According to the United Nations, a billion people in the world, 80 % of them in developing countries, live with disabilities today. Globally, an estimated 46 % of people aged 60 and over are among those with disabilities. Moreover, one in every five women and one in every 10 children are likely to experience disability in their lifetime. In the EU, there are over 70 million people with a disability, roughly equivalent to 17.5 % of the total population. This figure is set to rise rapidly over the next decade, given that the EU population is ageing and that more than a third of those over 75 have a disability. Worryingly, people with disabilities are among the hardest hit by Covid-19.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Lowering hurdles to sport for persons with disabilities‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Elena Lazarou and Jana Titievskaia with Cecilia Handeland,

© corund / Adobe Stock

The election of the 46th President of the United States took place on 3 November 2020 amidst the unprecedented scenario of the coronavirus pandemic. Following several days of vote-counting, the democratic candidate, Joe Biden, secured the electoral votes needed to become the next President of the United States. His inauguration will take place on 20 January 2021.

Domestic concerns, most notably the management of the coronavirus crisis and the economy, as well as racial issues, were the most important subjects in determining voter preference. As usual, foreign policy did not rank highly amidst voters’ concerns. However, for the European Union, the impact of the election of Joe Biden on US foreign policy will leave a substantial mark on the future course of transatlantic relations and of global cooperation.

While foreign policy under the forthcoming Biden Administration is expected to depart from some of the key tenets of President Trump’s ‘America First’ foreign policy, experts also point to a high possibility of continuity in areas such as trade and relations with China. However, on climate change, multilateral cooperation and support for NATO, expectations are high regarding a potential return to deep levels of transatlantic consensus and cooperation. Biden’s foreign policy is likely to focus on multilateral cooperation, for example by re-joining the Paris Agreement on climate change and resuming US support for the World Health Organization. The former Vice-President has stated he will likely re-join the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA, or Iran Nuclear Deal) in time, and pursue an extension of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia.

Read the complete briefing on ‘US foreign policy after the 2020 Presidential election: Issues for the European Union‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Vasilis Margaras,

© Brad Pict / Adobe Stock.

The coronavirus pandemic is severely impacting the European population and the economy. Consequently the social and economic impact of the crisis is being felt in all EU regions. Although it is still too early to make concrete predictions about the long-term economic impact, the risks of increased disparities and the unravelling of previous years’ progress are real. Furthermore; the consequences of the Covid‑19 pandemic could well further impede the social, economic and territorial cohesion of the EU, by exacerbating existing divisions between EU regions.

The European Commission has put forward a number of proposals to alleviate the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on EU territories. The European Parliament has been generally supportive of the Commission’s proposals, triggering urgent procedures to approve them swiftly so that EU citizens could benefit immediately. Actions under various EU funds and policy instruments are now geared towards health-related purposes and the rekindling of the economy. In these critical times, cohesion policy is increasingly drawn upon to provide emergency relief and liquidity support to affected small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and companies. Amendments to the regulation governing the European structural and investment (ESI) funds were approved by Parliament to allow flexible use of the funds in addressing the challenges posed by the crisis. A number of additional regulations and policy instruments meanwhile complement the ESI funds in the fight against the pandemic’s negative consequences.

Local and regional authorities are at the forefront of the pandemic, as they are often responsible for providing much of the emergency response. They can use the adopted EU measures to reinforce their coronavirus action and to support their economic sectors.

This briefing is an update of an earlier edition, published in May 2020.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Exceptional coronavirus support measures of benefit to EU regions‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Mihalis Kritikos,

Digital human rights and the future of democracy: Lessons from the pandemic

Digital technologies are increasingly shaping our economy, politics, and society. As many online activities leave a digital trace, our digital activity allows automatic gathering of a wealth of behavioural data. However, digital processes and technologies are no longer only monitoring our behaviour, but via the use of predictive analytics, are also influencing it in a pervasive way. As major internet platforms increasingly frame public discourse, concern is rising as to how artificial intelligence (AI) and other emerging digital technologies are affecting our lives and our societies.

The accelerating commodification of personal data used for the design, training and validation of predictive algorithms and the extensive use of highly targeted behaviour modification techniques have become a new source of legal and ethical concern. Given that our decisions are increasingly ‘nudged’ by powerful data-mining algorithms, the threat of algocracy – ‘rule by the algorithm’ – challenges the rule of law and erodes human agency, privacy and even democracy, in many ways.

The ongoing pandemic has accelerated our dependence on the digital world and our transformation from data subjects to data suppliers. Although digital technologies have been an important aspect of our crisis response in terms of detection, treatment and prevention, there are concerns that this increasing digitisation may lead to augmented surveillance, massive digital dependence and high epistemic asymmetries. Coronavirus as the first pandemic of the ‘algorithmic age’ is exposing the pathologies in the data governance ecosystem, which has left unaccountable private actors in possession of both our data, and the means to extract economic value from it.

How can we defend human rights in the digital age and shape a framework for democratic and egalitarian governance? How can we manage the disruption that digitalisation imposes on democracy and human rights? Can our political and human rights be safeguarded in the digital age? Whose responsibility is it to tackle these risks and strengthen data sovereignty and algorithmic transparency underpinning a fully democratic digital society and rights-preserving data ecosystem? Can the rule of law and ethics help us reclaim our data sovereignty and uphold the principles of liberal democracy? Do online platforms view users of digital technologies as citizens with full control of their data or mere data suppliers? How is power in the digital world expressing itself and how is it distributed?

This year’s STOA Annual Lecture is expected to offer some well-informed answers to these crucial questions. The 2020 Annual Lecture will focus on the disruptive effects of the digital revolution upon democracy and the protection of civil liberties and human rights in the context of the current pandemic. It will examine the multifaceted impacts of digital technology on the notion of democratic citizenship and our ability to remain in control of our choices and data. The Annual Lecture 2020, led and moderated by STOA Chair Eva Kaili (S&D, Greece), will investigate the challenges associated with the growing ‘datafication’ and ‘platformisation’ of our societies, the need to reclaim data sovereignty in the era of AI, and address the plurality of socio-ethical challenges of digitisation.

The Annual Lecture will open with remarks from Eva Kaili, following which European Commission Vice-President for the European Way of Life, Margaritis Schinas, will deliver an introductory speech. The keynote lecture will be delivered by Shoshana Zuboff, Charles Edward Wilson Professor Emerita of Business Administration at Harvard Business School, and award-winning author of ‘The Age of Surveillance Capitalism’. Professor Zuboff is a world-class thinker whose research is focused on the contested digital transition, its relationship to the future of capitalism, and the consequences for individuals and society.

A panel discussion of key new technologies will follow, with the participation of Members of the European Parliament and two eminent experts: Fredrik Heintz, Associate Professor of Computer Science at Linköping University, Sweden and President of the Swedish AI Society, and Karen Yeung, Professor of Law, Ethics and Informatics at the University of Birmingham Law School and School of Computer Science. The event will close with an (online) public debate.

Interested? Register for the lecture and join the debate.

Written by Jakub Przetacznik,

© SIARHEI RABCHONAK / Adobe Stock

At a time when authoritarianism is rising, the Sakharov Prize draws attention to the situation of those who resist the repression of human rights and fundamental freedoms. This year, the prize is to be awarded to the democratic opposition in Belarus, represented by the Coordination Council. It rewards its courageous and peaceful role in opposing the falsification of the August 2020 elections, despite a brutal crackdown by the authorities. The Sakharov Prize will be presented in a ceremony during the European Parliament’s December plenary session.

Significance of the Sakharov Prize

Every year, since 1988, the European Parliament has awarded the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought to individuals or organisations for outstanding achievement in defending human rights and fundamental freedoms – notably the right to freedom of expression, safeguarding the rights of minorities, upholding international law, developing democracy, and implementing the rule of law. Initiated by a 1985 parliamentary resolution, the prize is named after Andrei Sakharov, the eminent Soviet-Russian nuclear physicist, 1975 Nobel Peace Prize winner, dissident and human rights activist.

Award procedure and the 2020 Sakharov Prize finalists and laureate

Political groups, or at least 40 Members of the European Parliament, nominate the candidates for the Sakharov Prize. From the list of nominees, three finalists are then shortlisted by Members in a joint vote of the Committees on Foreign Affairs and Development, as well as the Subcommittee on Human Rights.

The three finalists for the 2020 Sakharov Prize were: the democratic opposition in Belarus, represented by the Coordination Council, an initiative of brave women and other political and civil society figures; Guapinol activists and Berta Cáceres in Honduras – an environmental group peacefully protesting against mining activities polluting local rivers, whose members were either imprisoned or murdered (Berta Cáceres in March 2016 and, most recently, Arnold Joaquin Morazán Erazo in October 2020); and Monsignor Najeeb Michaeel, Archbishop of Mosul, Iraq – who ensured the evacuation of Christians, Syriacs and Chaldeans to Iraqi Kurdistan and safeguarded more than 800 historic manuscripts, written in Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic and Armenian, thus saving both people’s lives and their historical heritage.

On 22 October 2020, Parliament’s Conference of Presidents announced the decision to honour the democratic opposition in Belarus with the 2020 Sakharov Prize. The opposition is represented by the Coordination Council, which comprises opposition candidate Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, Nobel Laureate Svetlana Alexievich, musician and political activist Maryia Kalesnikava, political activists Volha Kavalkova and Veranika Tsapkala, video blogger and political prisoner Siarhei Tsikhanouski, Ales Bialiatski, founder of Viasna, a Belarusian human rights organisation, Siarhei Dyleuski, the leader of the Minsk Tractor Works strike committee, Stsiapan Putsila, founder of the Telegram channel NEXTA, and Mikola Statkevich, political prisoner and presidential candidate in the 2010 election.

Announcing the decision, Parliament’s President, David Sassoli, congratulated the representatives of the Belarusian opposition ‘for their courage, resilience and determination’, adding that ‘even if the adversary is much stronger, the truth is on their side’. President Sassoli encouraged the laureates ‘to stay strong and not to give up’ on their fight. The democratic opposition is the third Sakharov prize laureate from Belarus. The previous two were the Belarusian Association of Journalists in 2004, and Aliaksandr Milinkevich, a democratic opposition candidate during the 2006 presidential elections.

Democratic opposition in Belarus represented by the Coordination Council

After 26 years of Aliaksandr Lukashenka’s presidency and previous attempts to democratise their state, Belarusians tried once more to change their president in 2020. On 9 August, Lukashenka, the incumbent president (often referred to in the media as Europe’s ‘last dictator’), again stood as a candidate in the presidential elections. Conversely, Viktar Babaryka and Siarhei Tsikhanouski were refused the right to stand in the election, and were arrested. Valer Tsapkala’s candidacy was also refused and he fled the country. Subsequently, the Lukashenka regime permitted Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya to run in the elections. Many commentators consider that this was due to Lukashenka’s conviction that Belarusians would not support a female candidate. Prior to the election, Lukashenka claimed that the strong presidential powers provided in the Belarusian Constitution mean that women are unfit to be president. However, the Belarusian people decided differently and gave Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya broad support, with independent exit polls showing her as winning with an absolute majority of votes. Nevertheless, the official results stated that Lukashenka had’ won the election with over 80 % of the votes. In response, Belarusians staged strikes, demonstrations and women’s marches in protest against the electoral fraud. The police responded with violence, torture, arrests and sexual violence. The murder of protesters fuelled further protest and was condemned internationally.

Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya was forced into exile on 11 August 2020, and while in the Lithuanian capital, Vilnius, established the Coordination Council on 19 August. The Coordination Council’s aim is to facilitate the transfer of power through negotiation, without changing the Belarusian constitutional order or foreign policy. The Coordination Council expressed three demands: end violence and political persecution by the authorities and conduct an investigation into human rights abuses; release all political prisoners, annul all illegal court decisions and provide monetary compensation to victims; and conduct new presidential elections based on international standards, with newly formed electoral commissions. The Coordination Council stated that, until these demands are met, the ‘Belarusian people will continue to exercise their civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution’. The findings of an October 2020 OSCE report support the Coordination Council demands, calling for a re-run of the election, ‘due to irregularities at all stages of the process’.

Belarus government actions against democratic opposition

Several Coordination Council members were either forced into exile or were arrested. Two out of seven members of the Coordination Council Board, Mariya Kalesnikava and Maksim Znak remained under arrest in mid-November. They are not the only ones to have been arrested. During the first four days of protests alone, some 6 700 people were arrested, and many are still detained. The OSCE report testifies that there were massive and systematic human rights abuses around events related to the Belarus presidential elections, stating that ‘the torture or inhuman and degrading treatment was intentional as it was wide-spread and systematic as well as targeted at the opposing protesters … It followed a systematic and wide-spread pattern including Minsk and other cities’. The report finds it particularly concerning that those responsible for well-documented cases of torture and ill-treatment have not been held accountable, thereby confirming allegations of general impunity.

Demonstrations continue to take place each Sunday, with thousands of people arrested each month. According to reports, on 12 November, undercover police killed opposition supporter, Raman Bandarenka.

European Union position

The EU has expressed solidarity with Belarusians, condemned the violence against protesters and called for the immediate release of detained persons and for an inclusive national dialogue. The EU and its institutions do not recognise the election results and state that Lukashenka lacks any democratic legitimacy.

The European Council introduced sanctions against individuals responsible for repression and election falsification. As of 6 November, Lukashenka has been included in the list of officials subject to travel bans and asset freezes.

Since August 2020, the European Parliament has frequently invited representatives of the Coordination Council to discuss the situation of Belarusians. Svetlana Tsikhanouskaya met President Sassoli on 21 September, the day on which the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs recommended the recognition of the Coordination Council ‘as the legitimate representative of the people demanding democratic change and freedom in Belarus’.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘The 2020 Sakharov Prize laureate: The democratic opposition in Belarus‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© chrisdorney / Adobe Stock

Joseph Biden, who takes office as the next US President on 20 January 2021 has started to announce nominations for key posts in his Administration. Most commentators outside the US, as well as many at home, hope that a Biden presidency will seek to restore a rules-based international order, which has been badly shaken by his predecessor, Donald Trump. Although pundits warn against expecting miracles from the new President in international policy, as the national agenda is likely to be his top priority initially – notably the fight against the coronavirus pandemic, efforts to restore economic growth and the need to try to heal deep divisions in American society – there are still high hopes that Biden will bring the US back into the international community’s pursuit of peace and security, development goals and fighting climate change.

This note offers links to recent commentaries, studies and reports from major international think tanks on issues related to US elections and President Biden’s expected policies in a number of areas.

Are Europe’s leaders ready for a Biden presidency?
Carnegie Europe, November 2020

Europe’s high expectations for a U.S. President Joe Biden
Carnegie Europe, November 2020

A strategic Europe after the 2020 U.S. Election?
Carnegie Europe, November 2020

Picking up the pieces: America after the 2020 Election
Bertelsmann Stiftung, November 2020

Sharp divisions on vote counts, as Biden gets high marks for his post-election conduct
Pew Research Center, November 2020

America is exceptional in the nature of its political divide
Pew Research Center, November 2020

President Biden: Good for Europe, but not a miracle-worker
Centre for European Reform, November 2020

President Biden: Don’t expect miracles, Europe
Centre for European Reform, November 2020

2021 can be a climate breakthrough, but Biden and Europe need to talk
Bruegel, November 2020

Biden’s win creates a new global trade challenge: Delivering results
European Centre for International Political Economy, November 2020

Irish-American: Biden’s heritage and transatlantic relations
European Centre for International Political Economy, November 2020

Putting America’s civic infrastructure on the Biden-Harris agenda
Rand Corporation, November 2020

U.S. versus Chinese powers of persuasion
Rand Corporation, November 2020

L’élection de Biden-Harris: Un répit en vue de quoi?
Institut français des relations internationales, November 2020

From Brussels with love: How the European Union can win the battle of narratives
European Council on Foreign Relations, November 2020

Building back a better transatlantic alliance
European Council on Foreign Relations, November 2020

Second acts: How Europe can renew the transatlantic partnership
European Council on Foreign Relations, November 2020

Elections américaines et questions nucléaires: Quels sont les enjeux?

Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique, November 2020

Politique extérieure des États-Unis: Biden ou l’espoir du retour au multilatéralisme
Groupe de Recherche et d’Information sur la Paix et la Sécurité, November 2020

Are we witnessing the dawn of a new global politics?
Friends of Europe, November 2020

All change in the White House, but in the transatlantic relationship too?
Friends of Europe, November 2020

A memo to President-elect Biden: Don’t coddle white racial anxieties
Brookings Institution, November 2020

President-elect Biden: Want to reduce polarization? Modernize federal rural policy
Brookings Institution, November 2020

‘All in’ climate diplomacy: How a Biden-Harris administration can leverage city, state, business, and community climate action
Brookings Institution, November 2020

Post-election town hall: Possible policy impacts on the social determinants of health
Brookings Institution, November 2020

President-Elect Biden on foreign policy
Council on Foreign Relations, November 2020

Transition 2021: What foreign policy challenges await President-Elect Biden?
Council on Foreign Relations, November 2020

Revitalizing the State Department and American diplomacy
Council on Foreign Relations, November 2020

One America, two nations
Council on Foreign Relations, November 2020

Election security 2020
Council on Foreign Relations, November 2020

Biden should call for an early G20 Summit
Center for Strategic and International Studies, November 2020

What will Biden do?
Center for Strategic and International Studies, November 2020

Biden can engage Southeast Asia and still promote good governance
Center for Strategic and International Studies, November 2020

A Biden climate policy for agri-food systems must confound traditional policy categories if it is going to work
Center for Strategic and International Studies, November 2020

Neustart für das transatlantische verhältnis
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, November 2020

Five key learnings for the Biden administration
Chatham House, November 2020

Five key questions on Biden’s Middle East policy
Chatham House, November 2020

A new US–UK democratic agenda could be on the horizon
Chatham House, November 2020

US Midterm elections: What the results mean
Chatham House, November 2020

Renewing transatlantic strategy on Iran
Atlantic Council, November 2020

The Trump administration can still seal a trade deal with India—and cement a legacy
Atlantic Council, November 2020

Trump’s plan to bring US troops home by Inauguration Day
Atlantic Council, November 2020

The Trump administration is right: On civilian oversight of special operations
Atlantic Council, November 2020

The effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on US and European commitment to the multilateral economic order
Istituto Affari Internazionali, November 2020

The aftermath: American power after Covid-19
Istituto Affari Internazionali, November 2020

Covid19 and the foreign policy perceptions of US public and elites
Istituto Affari Internazionali, November 2020

2020: The American evolution that wasn’t
Istituto Affari Internazionali, November 2020

Act as if it does not matter who wins
Egmont, November 2020

No, the Presidential Election was not rigged by hacked voting machines
Cato Institute, November 2020

How Biden and Xi can keep the new Cold War from turning hot
Hoover Institution, November 2020

Recommendations for the Biden administration on engaging with religious communities
Center for American Progress, November 2020

The hyper-rhetorical presidency
American Enterprise Institute, November 2020

Turning the tide: How to rescue Transatlantic relations
EU Institute for Security Studies, October 2020

The Federal Election Reform Commission must no longer be ignored
Heritage Foundation, November 2020

Biden’s victory means cautious optimism in Paris
German Marshall Fund, November 2020

With a Biden administration, Poland expects continuity in security and a return of democracy
German Marshall Fund, November 2020

The Federal Government Owns 92 % of student debt: Will Biden wipe it out?
Institute for Policy Studies, November 2020

Should Joe Biden forgive student loan debt?
Pacific Research Institute, November 2020

Read this briefing on ‘Post-Trump: Great expectations of Biden‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Martin Russell,

© oatawa / Adobe Stock

In the middle of the coronavirus pandemic, World Aids Day on 1 December is a timely reminder of the need for continued efforts to tackle other global health problems. Since the first cases were recorded in 1981, the disease has claimed 33 million lives worldwide. New infections and deaths are steadily declining but there are still huge disparities and challenges to meeting the UN target of ending the epidemic by 2030.

Global and regional trends

HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) is transmitted through blood, semen, as well as vaginal and other bodily secretions. Infections spread through sexual intercourse, sharing of needles by drug users, and sometimes through blood transfusions. Mothers can also infect their children during pregnancy and breastfeeding. If left untreated, HIV attacks the body’s immune system, and may lead to AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome). Due to their loss of immunity, most AIDS sufferers die within a few years due to contracting other severe diseases such as tuberculosis and cancer.

HIV is thought to have originated among central African primates. Human infections were first identified in the United States in 1981. In most parts of the world, the epidemic reached its peak around the turn of the century. In southern Africa, the worst affected region, AIDS caused average life expectancy to plunge by nearly 20 years in some countries. Since then, both infection and death rates have declined steadily. In 2019, there were an estimated 690 000 AIDS-related deaths (-59 % compared to the peak in 2005) and 1.7 million new infections (-39 % down on the 1999 peak). The total number of people living with HIV is 38 million.

HIV is most prevalent in eastern and southern Africa, where nearly 7 % of adults are living with the virus. This percentage reaches over 20 % in southern African countries such as Eswatini (27 %), Lesotho (23 %) and Botswana (21 %). However, this is also the region that has seen the biggest progress in terms of curbing new infections (-52 % since 2009). Though starting from a much lower level, new infections in eastern Europe and central Asia are rising fast (+75 %). Certain groups are much more severely affected than others. Although they only represent a small share of the population, gay men, drug users and sex workers, together with their clients and partners, account for the majority of new infections in all regions except for eastern and southern Africa. Although infection rates are mostly similar for men and women, in many African countries young women are far more likely to catch the virus than men.

Progress towards curbing the epidemic

The sustainable development goals adopted by the UN in 2015 envisage ending the HIV/AIDS epidemic by 2030. In 2014, UN agency UNAIDS set three intermediate goals for 2020: at least 90 % of people with the virus should be aware of their status; of these, 90 % should receive treatment, with virus levels in 90 % of patients receiving treatment reduced to a level where no infection is possible. The combined effect of achieving these three targets would be to cut infection rates by three-quarters. Southern and eastern Africa, the worst affected region, has come close to achieving these targets (87 %; 83 %; 93%), helping to explain the dramatic drop in infection rates, while the eastern Europe/central Asia region is one of the worst performers (70 %; 63 %; 93 %), figures that again correlate with sharply rising infections.

No cure exists for HIV/AIDS, but it can be managed as a chronic disease through antiretroviral treatment (ART), which reduces concentrations of the virus in the body to a level where it no longer threatens the patient’s life or infects others. The same drugs can also be taken preventively by persons who are at high risk of exposure (such as sex workers). ART is expensive, not least due to the fact that it has to be continued through a patient’s entire remaining life, but also highly effective; the experience of Brazil, which has provided ART free of charge since 1996, demonstrates that universally available treatment is affordable even for middle-income countries. However, 13 million HIV-positive people (one-third of those infected) do not yet have access to it. Prevention also plays an important part, for example, sex education, encouraging the use of condoms, and circumcision for men – which reduces the risk of female to male infection by half.

There are still many challenges

UNAIDS points to a funding shortfall: in 2019, US$18.6 billion was available to tackle the disease in developing countries, 7 % less than in 2017 and 30 % less than the UN target of US$26.2 billion. Declining funding may reflect complacency, as infection rates have been dropping in most countries. Funding will be even scarcer in 2020, with healthcare resources diverted to tackle the coronavirus pandemic. Covid-19 obstructs the fight against HIV/AIDS in other ways, for example by disrupting medical supply chains or discouraging patients from leaving home to seek treatment. The persistence of the HIV epidemic points to wider social and behavioural issues that cannot easily be addressed through drugs and funding alone. Some religious groups oppose condoms, arguing that they encourage promiscuity – an obstacle to efforts to promote safe sex. In Russia, there is strong resistance to introducing sex education in schools, while NGOs that distribute free needles and condoms to drug users are also frowned upon. Conservative attitudes are part of the reason for Russia’s high and rising infection rates. Many countries are unwilling to take steps, such as legalising prostitution or treating heroin addicts with methadone, which could protect some of the most vulnerable groups. In some Middle Eastern countries, nearly 90 % of the population has negative views of people living with HIV. Stigmatisation can discourage patients from seeking treatment, and may even result in them being denied healthcare.

Leading the global fight against the epidemic

Established in 1996, UNAIDS took over from the World Health Organization as the lead UN agency responsible for coordinating the fight against HIV/AIDS. It has played a key role in curbing the spread of the disease by raising awareness and mobilising resources. However, many observers question the value of having a separate body from the WHO, arguing for a more integrated approach that helps developing countries tackle health problems across the board; they also point out that HIV/AIDS receives a disproportionate amount of funding compared to threats such as diabetes, which claim far more lives.

Through its PEPFAR fund (US$6.9 billion in 2020), the US is the main foreign contributor to spending on HIV/AIDS in developing countries. The EU does not have a dedicated HIV/AIDS programme, but in 2019 it pledged €550 million over the next three years for the Global Fund, a UN-led partnership to tackle HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Since 2014, the EU has also allocated €220 million from the Horizon 2020 programme for HIV/AIDS-related research. In 2017, the European Parliament called for an integrated EU policy framework on HIV, tuberculosis and viral hepatitis.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘The Global HIV/AIDS epidemic‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Angelos Delivorias (1st edition),

© shane / Adobe Stock

The pricing of many financial instruments and contracts depends on the accuracy and integrity of (financial) benchmarks, i.e. indices, by reference to which the amounts payable under such financial instruments or contracts, or the value of certain financial instruments, are determined. The anticipated discontinuation of such a benchmark (LIBOR) after the end of 2021 has created fears that it could lead to disruption in the internal market, given that the Benchmarks Regulation ((EU) 2016/1011) does not provide for mechanisms to organise the orderly discontinuation of systemically important benchmarks in the EU. That is why the Commission has proposed to amend the said regulation. The Council adopted its negotiating mandate on 6 October, while the European Parliament’s Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee (ECON) adopted its report on 19 November 2020, and also voted to open trilogue negotiations with the Council.

Complete version

• Replacement benchmarks for financial benchmarks in cessation (1st edition)

Exemption of certain third country foreign exchange benchmarks and the designation of replacement benchmarks for certain benchmarks in cessation Committee responsible: Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) COM(2020) 337
24.7.2020 Rapporteurs: Caroline Nagtegaal (Renew, The Netherlands) 2020/0154(COD) Shadow rapporteurs: Luděk Niedermayer (EPP, Czechia)
Jonás Fernández (S&D, Spain)
Jörg Meuthen (ID, Germany)
Ville Niinistö (Greens/EFA, Finland)
Patryk Jaki (ECR, Poland)
José Gusmão (GUE/NGL, Portugal) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Trilogue negotiations

Written by Katarzyna Sochacka and Clare Ferguson,

© European Union 2020 – Source : EP / Daina Le Lardic

During the second November 2020 plenary session, Parliament held a number of debates with Council and the European Commission. Discussions concerned fundamental rights issues such as abortion rights in Poland, the new LGBTIQ equality strategy, and Hungarian interference in the media in Slovenia and North Macedonia. In a debate with Council and Commission, Members also discussed the forthcoming European Council meeting, on 10‑11 December 2020. Debates with the Commission included discussion of a new consumer strategy and a pharmaceutical strategy for Europe. Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borell made statements on escalating tensions in Varosha, and on the fight against impunity for crimes committed against journalists around the world, followed by a debate with Members. Members also voted, inter alia, on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers, on customs duties on certain products, on tariff quotas with Northern Ireland, as well as on a number of own-initiative reports, including on industrial policy.

Towards a more sustainable single market for business and consumers

Members approved, by large majority, an Internal Market (IMCO) Committee own-initiative report on improving the sustainability of the single market for both business and consumers, suggesting that consumers could be encouraged to make better environmental choices by ensuring a ‘right to repair’, improving guarantees and promoting better product information. Members took the opportunity to underline the need to ensure product safety and the protection of consumer rights.

Amending Budget No 9/2020: Mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund

In response to the coronavirus public health emergency in seven EU countries, as well as an earthquake in Croatia and flooding in Poland, Members voted on draft amending budget 9/2020, thereby approving the release of a total of €823.5 million from the EU Solidarity Fund to help people in the affected regions. The decision authorises the Commission to begin assessment of the requests for assistance it has received.

Foreign policy implications of the pandemic

Members debated and adopted an own-initiative report from the Foreign Affairs (AFET) Committee on the foreign policy consequences of the Covid‑19 outbreak, following a short presentation. Members underlined the need for the EU to seize the opportunity to respond to the challenges of the evolving international landscape, where both the pandemic and recent United States elections highlight the need for a stronger role in rebuilding the multilateral order and defending EU values.

Abraham Accords

Members heard and debated a statement from the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the geopolitical implications of the Abraham Accords (held over from the November I session). Parliament has a long commitment to peace in the Middle East, and (despite Palestinian Authority and Palestinian factions’ concerns), has welcomed the United States-brokered normalisation of relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Sudan.

Strengthening media freedom in the EU

Members debated, and by majority adopted, Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) own-initiative report on the deteriorating media environment in Europe and measures to strengthen media freedom, protect journalists, and tackle hate speech and disinformation in the EU. The LIBE report highlights areas where EU action could improve the situation, including: ensuring robust media freedom and pluralism, and the political and financial independence of the media; protecting (particularly investigative) journalists; and charting a course through the tension between justified freedom of expression and unjustified permissibility of hate speech, as well as disinformation. The committee proposed stronger monitoring and increased measures against misinformation, particularly on the part of digital platforms.

Istanbul Convention: A tool to tackle violence against women and girls

Partly due to the coronavirus crisis, violence against women has worsened in the EU. Parliament has consistently supported a strong stance on the issue, repeatedly calling for EU accession to the Istanbul Convention. Members heard a Commission statement on the Istanbul Convention, which sets legally binding standards on prevention of such violence. Parliament’s President underlined the EU commitment to non-violence and equality, and the Chair of the Women’s Rights & Gender Equality Committee reiterated the call for all EU countries to ratify the Convention. However, as things stand, Parliament will not be formally requested to consent to EU conclusion of the Convention until the European Court of Justice has delivered an opinion on the Convention’s compatibility with the Treaties.

Taking stock of the 2019 European elections

Members voted by large majority to adopt a Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) Committee own-initiative report proposing to strengthen the European electoral process. Welcoming the higher turnout in 2019, Members regretted however that the results do not reflect the true diversity and gender balance in Europe’s population. They also warned against foreign interference in elections and put forward a number of possible improvements to the European electoral system, such as remote voting for citizens in specific circumstances; transnational lists; and the establishment of a European Electoral Authority, among other things. Furthermore, Members suggest a reflection on the Spitzenkandidaten process.

Opening of trilogue negotiations

Members confirmed three mandates for negotiations: two from the Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) Committee, on a proposal for a regulation on exemption of certain third-country foreign exchange benchmarks and the designation of replacement benchmarks for certain benchmarks in cessation; and on a proposal for a regulation on EU recovery prospectus and targeted adjustments for financial intermediaries to help the recovery from the Covid‑19 pandemic. The third mandate approved, from the Fisheries (PECH) Committee, concerns a proposal for a regulation on conservation and enforcement measures applicable in the Regulatory Area of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization.

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

Written by Costica Dumbrava,

© tanaonte / Adobe Stock

In an effort to tackle the second wave of the coronavirus outbreak, EU Member States started reinstating restrictions on the freedom of movement in October 2020. To prevent a new series of severe and uncoordinated restrictions at countries’ internal borders similar to those of March this year, there have been renewed efforts at the EU level to establish a coordinated approach towards coronavirus-related restrictions on movement.

While the focus is now on the ongoing health crisis, concerns about the functioning of the Schengen area of free movement predate the pandemic. As recent terrorist attacks in Europe remind us, scant progress and unfinished reforms in the area of migration, external borders and security both weaken and threaten to undo the important achievements of Schengen cooperation.

This briefing discusses the key steps taken by the EU to develop a common response to the above challenges and thus to safeguard the Schengen area. It provides an overview of the main restrictions on movement imposed by EU and Schengen countries as of 25 November 2020. Since contact-tracing apps have been promoted as a key tool in combating the pandemic and restoring freedom of movement, this briefing also provides an overview of the existing coronavirus applications in the EU Member States and their interoperability across borders.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Towards a common EU approach to lifting coronavirus-related restrictions on freedom of movement‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Philip Boucher,

With the launch of its Centre for Artificial Intelligence (C4AI), the appointment of a new International Advisory Board (INAB) focusing on AI, and a partnership on AI with the OECD, STOA is intensifying its activities on artificial intelligence.

Centre for Artificial Intelligence

Eva Kaili (EP), Margrethe Vestager (EC) and Anthony Gooch (OECD) at the STOA workshop on the Future of Artificial Intelligence for Europe ©European Union (EP)

STOA launched its Centre for Artificial Intelligence (C4AI) to underscore its determination to extend and diversity its activities in this crucial field. A decision of the STOA Panel established the C4AI on 19 December 2019, and the high-level STOA workshop ‘The Future of Artificial Intelligence for Europe‘, launched the centre on 29 January 2020, at the European Parliament in Brussels.

The C4AI produces studies, organises public events and acts as a platform for dialogue and information exchange on AI-relevant topics within the Parliament and beyond, within the context of STOA and based on decisions of the STOA Panel. In particular, it provides expertise on the possibilities and limitations of AI and its implications from an ethical, legal, economic and societal perspective. Through these activities, C4AI aims to contribute to the quality and coherence of discussion and policy-making as the EU seeks to coordinate its efforts and influence global AI standard-setting.

International Advisory Board

STOA and its C4AI are eager to cooperate and exchange with stakeholders and partners within the Parliament, the global parliamentary community and beyond. To this end, a new STOA International Advisory Board (INAB) is being established for the remainder of this parliamentary term (2020‑2024). The Board will provide STOA with strategic advice about the future direction of its work on science and technology in general, with an emphasis on AI and the activities of the C4AI, increasing STOA’s outreach capacity and widening its pool of high-level expertise. The STOA Panel remains responsible for initiating and coordinating its activities. So far, 21 world-renowned personalities from academia, international organisations, the private sector and think tanks have already agreed to join the board.

Partnership with OECD Global Parliamentary Network

STOA and the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS), are entering into a partnership with the OECD’s Global Parliamentary Network (GPN), following an agreement during the Panel meeting of 11 September 2020. The GPN is a hub for legislators and officials from parliaments around the world to share experiences, identify good practices and foster international legislative co-operation. It includes a Parliamentary Group on Artificial Intelligence, and benefits from proximity with the OECD’s AI Policy Observatory and Global Partnership on AI. The partnership between STOA and the GPN will be launched at a joint event on 2 December 2020.

Follow us on Twitter at @EP_ScienceTech to stay informed about our activities.

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

Further information

• STOA publications on artificial intelligence

Written by Alessandro D’Alfonso (1st edition),

© weyo / Adobe Stock

The InvestEU programme is a single investment support mechanism for the 2021-2027 period. It would bring together various EU financial instruments for internal policies that are currently supported by different funds and programmes of the EU budget. In May 2020, the European Commission put forward a revised proposal for InvestEU, reflecting a partial agreement reached by Parliament and Council in 2019 and incorporating new elements to take account of the impact of the coronavirus crisis. On 4 November 2020, the Council adopted its partial mandate for the interinstitutional negotiations. Parliament adopted a mandate for negotiations during the November I 2020 plenary part-session. The structuring of InvestEU in policy windows and its contribution to the European Green Deal and a just transition are among the points to be agreed by the co-legislators. The financial envelope of the programme depends on the outcome of the negotiations on the EU’s next multiannual financial framework.

Complete version

• InvestEU programme: The EU’s new investment support scheme (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the InvestEU programme Committee responsible: Budgets (BUDG) and Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) – jointly under Rule 58 COM(2020) 403
29.5.2020 Rapporteurs: José Manuel Fernandes (EPP, Portugal) and Irene Tinagli (S&D, Italy) 2020/0108(COD) Shadow rapporteurs: Enikő Győri (EPP, Hungary); Eider Gardiazabal Rubial (S&D, Spain); Ondřej Kovařík (Renew, Czechia); Nils Torvalds (Renew, Finland); Valentino Grant (ID, Italy); Joachim Kuhs (ID, Germany); Kira Marie Peter-Hansen (Greens/EFA, Denmark); Monika Vana (Greens/EFA, Austria); Bogdan Rzońca (ECR, Poland); Johan Van Overtveldt (ECR, Belgium); Petros Kokkalis (GUE/NGL, Greece); Dimitrios Papadimoulis (GUE/NGL, Greece) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Trilogue negotiations

Written by Ralf Drachenberg and Izabela Bacian,

© Adobe Stock

Initially planned to discuss only the EU response to the coronavirus pandemic, recent developments required EU leaders to dedicate attention to other issues during the European Council video-conference meeting of 19 November 2020. In this context, they addressed notably the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), specifically the rule-of-law conditionality linked to the MFF, and the fight against terrorism. While the vast majority of Member States agree with the compromise reached between negotiators from the Council and the European Parliament on the issue of rule-of-law conditionality, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia are currently not able to support it. The President of the European Council, Charles Michel, indicated that discussions to find an acceptable solution for all would continue. The exchange of information on the coronavirus pandemic focused in particular on the development of vaccines, ensuring that they would be available and affordable to all EU citizens, and on the coordination of the exit from the second-wave restrictions. The European Council agreed once more to further strengthen coordination of action against the coronavirus pandemic.

1. European Council meeting Coronavirus pandemic

The European Council meeting of 15-16 October had already agreed to intensify overall coordination, both at EU level and between Member States, in respect of the coronavirus crisis, and to regularly exchange information on the situation by video-conference. EU leaders continued their discussions on testing and vaccination as well as on the lifting of restrictive measures, following the peak of the second wave of infections. Discussions focused on developing a common approach on the use of rapid antigen tests – complementary to PCR tests (which require laboratory analysis) – allowing for mutual recognition of the tests and their results across the EU Member States. The European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, stressed that reaching 80 % sensitivity in detection of the virus would be part of the necessary performance criteria for rapid antigen tests. Ahead of the meeting, the Commission had adopted a recommendation on the use of rapid antigen tests for the diagnosis of Covid-19. Progress on a digital passenger locator form was also made, with two Member States already part of the pilot project and 12 more expected to join soon. The roundtable discussion included an exchange on national testing strategies.

Regarding vaccines, Charles Michel welcomed the conclusion of advance purchase agreements with five pharmaceutical companies (BioNTech, CureVac, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson and Sanofi-GSK) and stressed that national vaccination plans needed to be in place to ensure vaccines are made available and affordable to all EU citizens. Logistical challenges such as storage, transport and the number of doses represent just some of the challenges ahead; a massive communication effort to facilitate the uptake of the vaccine by EU citizens will also need to be carried out. President von der Leyen also announced that Team Europe – that is the Member States together with the European Commission – have provided €800 million to COVAX, the international facility bringing together 190 countries to make sure that low- and middle-income countries will have access to future vaccines. President Michel underlined the EU’s commitment to COVAX, and recalled that the vaccines should be a common public good, accessible to all and universally available.

Finally, President Michel cautioned against the premature lifting of restrictive measures. The exit from lockdown should be ‘gradual and regressive’. The Commission will soon make a proposal for a coordinated approach to lifting the containment measures. President Michel stressed that the coronavirus has had a devastating human cost, and that behind all the numbers and statistics lie human lives, which is why EU leaders remained united in their fight in combatting the pandemic.

Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) and rule-of-law conditionality

Although not in their initial plans, EU leaders also addressed the MFF for the 2021-27 period, and in particular rule-of-law conditionality (i.e. the proposed general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget). The rule-of-law conditionality regime forms part of the package of measures concerning the 2021-27 MFF, also including Next Generation EU (NGEU) and the own resources decision (for a detailed overview, see EPRS, Negotiations on the next MFF and the EU recovery instrument). However, the approval procedures for the different elements vary, notably concerning the role of the European Parliament and the majority needed for approval in the Council (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Main elements of the MFF package and the legislative procedures applicable

Main elements of the MFF package and the legislative procedures applicable

As holder of the rotating Presidency-in-office of the Council of the EU, the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, updated her colleagues on the state of play in the discussions between the Parliament and Council on the MFF and NGEU recovery package. On 5 November 2020, the two institutions reached a provisional agreement on rule-of-law budget conditionality, and then on 10 November they reached a political agreement on the MFF. The different legislative elements of the next MFF and NGEU were presented to the Council for approval on 16 November. While the vast majority of Member States agreed with the compromise on the table, Poland and Hungary withheld their consent to launch written procedure to adopt the Own Resources Decision. They chose to block this part of the package, with which they have no specific issue, because it requires unanimity in Council for its adoption, while the rule of law conditionality, where their real concern lies, is decided by qualified majority voting.

At the General Affairs Council on 17 November, numerous participants underlined the seriousness of the situation and called for a responsible approach from all sides against the backdrop of the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic, which made EU programmes and financial support particularly important for citizens, businesses and economic recovery in general. Subsequently, the Slovenian Prime Minister, Janez Jansa, also criticised the rule of law budget conditionality.

Ursula von der Leyen stressed that the Commission supported the agreement found between the co-legislators. Both Presidents Michel and von der Leyen indicated that they ‘will continue to find an acceptable solution for all’, with the rotating Presidency leading the efforts. Charles Michel announced that he would hold consultations in different formats ahead of the December European summit, stressing that nobody under-estimated the seriousness of the situation.

Fight against terrorism

EU leaders expressed their solidarity with France and Austria following the terrorist attacks of recent months, notably in Paris, Nice and Vienna. They stated that they ‘will never shy away from defending our values and promoting our freedoms’. In that context, they stressed the importance of looking at the role of online platforms and of setting a stricter framework.

On 29 October, the European Council had already issued a joint statement, in which it condemned ‘in the strongest possible terms’ the attacks in France, calling them ‘attacks on our shared values’. Additionally, a video-conference, which focused on a European response to the terrorist attacks and included the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, the French President, Emmanuel Macron, the Austrian Chancellor, Sebastian Kurz, and the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Mark Rutte as well as the Presidents of the European Council and of the European Commission, took place on 10 November 2020. It was agreed that ‘an uncompromising stance to uphold the free and democratic order will be taken in the fight against terrorism’. EU leaders urged the acceleration of progress on important European actions to fight terrorism, including the planned entry-exit system to monitor travel across the external borders of the Schengen area.

On 13 November, the fifth anniversary of the 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, EU home affairs ministers issued a statement on the recent terrorist attacks in Europe. Ministers pledged to protect Europe’s societies and its people, to uphold common values and the European way of life as well as to safeguard our pluralist societies. They recalled that the security structures and legal framework in the Member States and at European Union level had been strengthened over the past two decades, but indicated that additional efforts and resources were needed. The European Council will revert to this issue in December.

EU-UK negotiations

While EU-UK negotiations on a future partnership were not discussed during the 19 November meeting, a number of leaders, including the Belgian Prime Minister, Alexander De Croo, Dutch Prime Minister, Mark Rutte, and French President, Emmanuel Macron, called for an acceleration of preparations for a ‘no-deal’ scenario. Negotiations between the EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, and British counterpart, David Frost, had intensified over the last few weeks; however, they had to be interrupted on Thursday 19 November, due to a case of coronavirus reported in Barnier’s team. Negotiations will continue remotely, however there is not yet agreement in the main areas of divergence between the two sides. With Barnier self-isolating, Ilze Juhansone, the Secretary-General of the Commission, informed the Member States’ EU ambassadors about the state of play in the negotiations the day after the leaders met. With no sign of agreement yet, time is running out for the ratification of any agreement before the end of the year.

2. The European Council and the video-conference working method

This meeting was the eighth video-conference meeting of the European Council’s members since the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic. The video-conference working method was introduced because of the impossibility of meeting in person.

Chart 2: European Council meetings in 2020

In 2020, the pandemic impacted not only the format of European Council meetings, but also their frequency. While the Lisbon Treaty requires the European Council to meet at least four times a year (twice every six months), over the years, it has in reality met a lot more often than that; since 2014, it has met between eight and nine times every year, and 12 times so far in 2020. Both its role of crisis manager, and the ease with which video-conference meetings can be organised, explain the increased frequency in 2020.

The experience over the past eight months has shown the advantages and limitations of the video-conference format for European Council meetings. On the one hand, this format is not well suited to negotiations, which traditionally rely heavily on break-out sessions between individual actors or groups in order to reach an agreement. Moreover, while increased coordination between EU Heads of State or Government is generally positive, the fact that many of these discussions do not include the European Parliament’s President and/or are not the subject of a report to Parliament by the European Council’s President, as is required for formal meetings, limits the Parliament’s oversight role. On the other hand, the increased frequency of European Council meetings using the video-conference format, gives EU leaders the opportunity to discuss other pressing issues at Heads of State or Government level, which would either have had to wait until later or be dealt with at a lower level. Several European Council video-conference meetings, which were initially intended to deal solely with EU coordination measures to address the coronavirus pandemic, were in fact also used to raise ‘burning’ or ad hoc issues. President Michel stressed the usefulness of holding regular video-conferences on the coronavirus pandemic in allowing EU leaders to remain seized of the situation across Europe and keep each other informed on the common challenges they face.

Read this briefing on ‘Outcome of the European Council video-conference of 19 November 2020‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Rosamund Shreeves

Orange the World: Fund, Respond, Prevent, Collect!

The International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women on 25 November is a time to take stock of what has been done to root out this violation of women’s and girl’s human rights. It is also a moment to identify where to improve legislation, policy and practice on the ground to ensure that all women can live free from violence and insecurity. This year, the focus is very much on the Covid‑19 pandemic, its appalling impact on levels of violence against women – particularly domestic violence – and what it revealed about the state of support structures for victims in the European Union (EU).

In March 2020, as governments across the world began to impose mandatory lockdowns on their populations to curb the spread of coronavirus, the United Nations warned that the pandemic could lead to an increase in levels of domestic violence and a decrease in the ability of service providers to respond to cases and support victims. In Europe, many actors raised the alarm, including the European Women’s Lobby, the Council of Europe’s Secretary General and Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence, the EU’s Commissioner for Equality, the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) and the European Parliament’s Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (FEMM).

Even in ‘normal times’, domestic violence is a considerable but under-reported problem, as data from the EU’s Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) and Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) show. Past epidemics were clearly associated with increased levels of violence against women and children and there are many reasons why quarantines in particular can increase the risks of domestic violence and abuse. They oblige victims to spend more time with perpetrators in circumstances where the confinement itself, fear of illness and anxiety over jobs and income tend to exacerbate tensions and problematic behaviours. Victims are more likely to be isolated from support networks, particularly where perpetrators capitalise on restrictions to exert power and control. Perpetrators may also monitor use of telephones and computers more closely, giving victims fewer opportunities to contact helplines and other support services. It is often difficult for victims to leave a violent or abusive partner, but quarantines can reduce avenues of escape still further by making it more difficult to access shelters and shrinking financial independence. Victims may also be afraid of becoming infected if they move out of the home. Shelters and support services are themselves likely to be under pressure and unable to operate normally due to the distancing measures and redeployment of resources to deal with the health emergency. Legal proceedings needed to issue barring and protection orders and evict perpetrators from the home may be interrupted. Any support for men who have already been violent or controlling towards their partners before a quarantine, or who may become so due to the situation, may also be reduced.

By April 2020, UN Secretary General, António Guterres, was signalling that lockdowns were indeed linked to a ‘horrifying global surge in domestic violence’ directed towards women and girls. In the EU, victim support organisations, police forces and governments began to release figures. Some countries saw sharp increases in the numbers of women reporting incidents. In France, reports of domestic violence rose by 30 % in the first 11 days of the country’s lockdown. In Spain, calls to the 016 helpline increased by 31 % from 14 March (when the lockdown began) to 15 April 2020, compared with the same period in 2019, while online consultations increased still more substantially (by 443.5 %) in the same period. In other countries, reports to helplines decreased. For example, in Italy, the largest domestic violence helpline reported that calls fell by 55 % to 496 in the first two weeks of March, compared with 1 104 in the same period in 2019. However, a parliamentary committee cautioned that this reflected added difficulties in reporting and seeking help. Findings from the United Kingdom and Germany illustrate why this can be the case. In the UK, the nationwide domestic violence helpline reported that during the first lockdown, perpetrators made increasing use of technology such as smart locks, webcams, social media or sharing revenge porn to intimidate and control partners. In Germany, 2 % of the 3 800 women who responded to a survey said that, during the strict lockdown period between 22 April and 8 May 2020, they had been unable to leave their home without their partner’s permission and 4.6 % reported that their partners had controlled their contacts with others, including their digital communication. The survey also illustrates the reality beneath the figures: around 3 % of the women were subjected to beatings or other forms of physical violence by a partner and 3.6 % were raped. The risk of all forms of domestic violence and abuse was significantly higher when women were self-isolating or when they or their partner had lost work or were in financial difficulty. At the most extreme, the UK Parliament heard evidence that the number of suspected domestic abuse killings doubled in the first three weeks of the lockdown compared with the same period over the past 10 years.

Simultaneously, the pandemic has created challenges for organisations supporting survivors of domestic violence. Reports to the Council of Europe show that domestic violence shelters in some areas stopped all admissions because they were unsure how to manage the risk of infection, while others privileged online or telephone support, leaving women at risk from their abusers. European and national women’s organisations have flagged gaps in essential services before the pandemic and limitations caused by the pandemic, including drastic cuts in funding for specialist support services in some countries. This is particularly worrying in view of the likelihood of increased demand for emergency intervention, counselling and therapy in the months after the crisis passes.

Against the backdrop of a resurgence in Covid‑19 cases in many EU countries and the prospect of further lockdowns, what lessons can be learned from what happened earlier in the year? This month, the EIGE and Parliament’s FEMM committee have both issued analyses of the emerging data on violence against women during the pandemic, how support services have adapted, and responses from governments, with policy recommendations for future action. The two studies for Parliament, on the gendered impact of the Covid‑19 crisis and the added value of the Istanbul Convention, found that all EU Member States adopted some promising measures. Nearly all conducted awareness-raising campaigns on where to get help. Some developed temporary help points in supermarkets and pharmacies or innovative apps or online means of alerting the police. Some classified hotlines and shelters as essential services, enabling them to continue to provide assistance. Some provided additional funding for these services or expanded capacity by converting empty tourist accommodation into shelters. A few countries introduced comprehensive action plans. However, initial findings from EIGE’s ongoing research into what the EU and the Member States can do to protect women more effectively from gender-based violence during crises show that support systems for victims of gender-based violence are shaky in the majority of EU countries. No EU country had a disaster plan in place to deal with domestic violence. The research for Parliament demonstrates that ratification of the Istanbul Convention – one of the EU’s priorities for preventing and combating violence against women – remains an important way forward. The Convention has contributed directly to the creation of services for victims in a number of countries, while countries that have ratified the Convention implemented more measures during the pandemic than those that have not, suggesting greater political awareness and readiness to respond to violence against women. Parliament will hear an update on progress towards EU accession to the Convention and hold a debate on violence against women at its plenary session on 25 November 2020.

Related EPRS publications:

The Istanbul Convention: A tool to tackle violence against women and girls (FR, DE) (update, November 2020)

Violence against women in the EU: State of play (FR) (update November 2020)

Written by Issam Hallak,

© niroworld / Adobe Stock

On 9 September 2020, the United Kingdom (UK) government tabled a bill in the House of Commons which would govern the country’s internal market after the Brexit transition period ends. It aims to allow goods and services to flow freely between the four jurisdictions of the UK – England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – replacing the rules now in place through membership of the EU’s single market.

Certain parts of this UK Internal Market Bill are particularly controversial, as they explicitly contravene the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland attached to the Withdrawal Agreement (WA) that was ratified in January 2020. First, the bill provides that the UK government may authorise Northern Ireland businesses not to complete exit summary declarations when sending goods to Great Britain, thereby breaching the Union Customs Code applicable to NI. The bill would also allow the UK government to interpret, dis-apply or modify the application of the State aid rules of the European Union, which are applicable to UK measures that affect trade between Northern Ireland and the EU. Last but not least, the bill provides that UK regulations in these areas will have effect notwithstanding their incompatibility with relevant domestic or international law, including the Withdrawal Agreement.

The reaction of the European Commission to the bill was immediate, calling for an extraordinary meeting of the EU-UK Joint Committee, which was held the following day, 10 September. On 1 October, the Commission sent a letter of formal notice to the UK for breaching its obligations under the WA, marking the beginning of an infringement process against the UK. As the UK did not reply by the end of October, the Commission may now proceed with the process, sending a Reasoned Opinion to the UK. Meanwhile, the bill has passed third reading in the House of Commons, even if in the House of Lords the government has been heavily defeated, with amendments removing the controversial clauses. While the government has indicated its intention to re-table the clauses when the bill returns to the Commons in December, it would be open to it to no longer press for their inclusion, if and when agreement is reached in the ongoing negotiations on the future EU-UK relationship.

Read the complete briefing on ‘UK Internal Market Bill and the Withdrawal Agreement‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

© Adobe Stock

The European Parliament regularly receives enquiries from citizens about artificial intelligence.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a technology that combines machine-learning techniques, robotics and automated decision-making systems. It is central to the digital transformation of society and it has become a priority for the European Union (EU). On the one hand, AI could have a positive impact for society and the economy, in healthcare or in the transport sector for example. On the other hand, it entails a number of potential risks for EU citizens’ fundamental rights that may have negative consequences. Against this background, the EU aims at fostering and regulating AI, while taking both threats and opportunities into account.

European Parliament position

In its February 2020 resolution on a comprehensive European industrial policy on AI and robotics, the European Parliament stressed that AI will increase productivity and output and, even though some jobs will be replaced, new jobs will also be created. The use of robotics and AI would improve working conditions, as it ‘should also reduce human exposure to harmful and hazardous conditions’. Moreover, the resolution highlighted the strategic sectors in which AI could bring an added value in the general public interest, such as health, energy and transport.

In October 2020, the European Parliament adopted three resolutions on what AI rules should include with regards to ethics, intellectual property rights and liability, and called for a harmonised approach at the EU level. Furthermore, the resolutions stated that the AI technologies should be ‘human-centric and human-made’ and should not cause any harm to individuals, society or the environment.

First, in its resolution on the ethical aspects of AI, the European Parliament put forward recommendations about the ethical principles needed for the new legal framework, which must be ‘values-based’ and built on safety, transparency and accountability. Moreover, it highlighted the advantages of AI application, for instance with regard to the internal market, transport, defence and green transition. However, AI technologies ‘must be tailored to human needs in line with the principle whereby their development, deployment and use should always be at the service of human beings’.

Second, the resolution on intellectual property rights called on the Commission to carry out an impact assessment regarding the protection of intellectual property rights in the context of AI development. Furthermore, it highlighted the benefits of AI development. For instance, AI could help in the fight against ‘deep fakes’ through the verification of facts and information. However, the European Parliament called for further clarification of the protection of data and for a common AI legislation to avoid massive litigation that might affect aspects such as traffic safety. The European Parliament also specified that AI technologies should not have legal personality and that only humans have the ownership of intellectual property rights.

Finally, in the resolution on a civil liability regime for AI, the European Parliament called for the adoption of a horizontal and harmonised legal framework for civil liability claims, which would ‘prevent potential misuses of AI-systems’. The resolution addressed some of the key aspects of this framework, such as the liability of the operator, insurance, and different liability rules for different risks. For instance, it proposed that those operating high-risk AI should be strictly liable for any resulting damage, material and immaterial harm.

In June 2020, the European Parliament decided to set up a new Special Committee on Artificial Intelligence in a Digital Age (AIDA) to assess the impact of AI, investigate its challenges, analyse the approach of non-EU countries and define common EU objectives in the medium- and long-term.

European Commission and AI

The European Commission has established its policy on artificial intelligence through a series of documents. In a 2018 communication, the European Commission set out an EU approach to AI addressing the socio-economic, ethical and legal aspects. In April 2019, based on the idea that trust is a prerequisite to ensuring a human-centric approach, the European Commission published non-binding guidelines on ethics in AI, which set out seven key requirements that AI systems should meet. In addition, the Commission highlighted in a communication that European values should be the core requirements for a trustworthy AI.

Furthermore, in a February 2020 White Paper on Artificial Intelligence: a European approach to excellence and trust, the Commission highlighted the need for a coordinated approach and proposed policy options for a future EU regulatory framework on AI. In parallel, it also published a communication highlighting the need to evaluate the intellectual property framework to enhance access to and use of data, which is essential for training AI systems. Later in 2020, the European Commission held a public consultation on its approach on AI.

Further information

• An EU framework for artificial intelligence, European Parliamentary Research Service, At a Glance, October 2020
• The White Paper on Artificial Intelligence, European Parliamentary Research Service, Briefing, April 2020
• Artificial intelligence: challenges for EU citizens and consumers, European Parliamentary Research Service, Briefing, January 2019
• Artificial intelligence, Research from the European Parliament
• Artificial intelligence in the EU, European Parliament
• Artificial intelligence, European Commission

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

© Adobe Stock

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

The President of the European Parliament has recently received a large number of messages calling on the Parliament to intervene and prevent a public consultation on the possible introduction of a digital euro by the European Central Bank. Citizens first began to write to the President on this subject in October 2020. After the European Central Bank announced that it would launch a public consultation on the potential implementation of a digital euro, citizens voiced concerns that a purely digital euro could increase the ability of authorities to control and monitor them, thereby potentially restricting their civil liberties and financial independence. However, as indicated by the European Central Bank, a digital euro would be intended to complement, but not replace, cash. The European Parliament is closely following plans regarding digital forms of payment.

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

Main points made in the reply in English

In a press release dated 2 October 2020, the European Central Bank (ECB) announced that the public consultation on the possible introduction of a digital euro would soon be launched. In it, the ECB stressed that a digital euro ‘would complement cash, not replace it’. Background information in this connection (plus an online registration form for taking part in the consultation exercise) can be found in the relevant section of the ECB website: A digital euro.

We would draw your attention to the fact that the ECB is independent and is not subject to instructions from the European Parliament or any other EU institution.

However, the ECB does have obligations and rights vis-à-vis other EU institutions. Accordingly, it is obliged to provide information to the parliamentary committee responsible. On 12 October 2020, for instance, in a meeting of the European Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON), ECB Executive Board Member Fabio Panetta presented the recently published report on a digital euro (currently available in English), by the Eurosystem High-Level Task Force on Central Bank Digital Currency, and subsequently discussed it with the committee Members. The Members welcomed investigations into digital forms of payment, but voiced their concerns on issues such as the inclusiveness and stability of financial systems. More information on the meeting can be found here.

Of the EU institutions, only the Commission has right of legislative initiative. Any legislation it proposed, following the consultation exercise, on the introduction of a digital euro would be subject to the ordinary legislative procedure. That means that it has to be thoroughly assessed by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. When conducting their deliberations accordingly and taking decisions, Members perform their duties freely and independently and may not be bound by any instructions or receive a binding mandate.

You can of course directly contact both Members in general and the Members of the European Parliament’s ECON committee in particular, in order to inform them of your views on this issue.

We would furthermore draw your attention to the fact that, as an EU citizen, you are entitled to submit a petition to the European Parliament on a matter which comes within the European Union’s fields of activity and which affects you directly. Further details about submitting a petition can be found via the petitions web portal of the petitions section of the European Parliament’s website.

Main points made in the reply in German

In einer Pressemitteilung vom 2. Oktober 2020 verkündete die Europäische Zentralbank (EZB) den zeitnahen Beginn des von Ihnen erwähnten öffentlichen Konsultationsverfahrens für die mögliche Einführung eines digitalen Euros. Hierbei betonte die EZB, dass ein digitaler Euro „Bargeld ergänzen, aber nicht ersetzen [würde]“. Hintergrundinformationen dazu (ebenso wie ein elektronisches Teilnahmeformular für die Konsultation) finden Sie auf der einschlägigen Website Ein digitaler Euro der EZB.

Wir möchten Sie in diesem Zusammenhang gerne darauf hinweisen, dass die EZB unabhängig und frei von Weisungen des EP sowie anderer EU-Institutionen ist.

Die EZB besitzt jedoch gewisse Verpflichtungen und Rechte anderen EU-Institutionen gegenüber. So unterliegt sie der Pflicht zur Auskunftserteilung an den für die jeweilige Sachmaterie zuständigen parlamentarischen Ausschuss. Am 12. Oktober 2020 präsentierte beispielsweise Fabio Panetta, Mitglied des Direktoriums der EZB, den neulich veröffentlichten Bericht der „Taskforce des Eurosystems zum digitalen Euro“ (zur Zeit in englischer Sprache verfügbar) im parlamentarischen Ausschuss für Wirtschaft und Währung (ECON), und diskutierte ihn anschließend mit den Abgeordneten. Die Abgeordneten des Ausschusses begrüßten die Erkundung digitaler Zahlungsformen, jedoch äußerten sie ihre Bedenken zu Themenbereichen wie allgemeine Zugänglichkeit und Stabilität der Finanzsysteme. Mehr Information zu diesem Treffen können Sie hier finden.

Sollte die Europäische Kommission als jenes Organ der EU, das das alleinige Initiativrecht im Bereich der Legislative besitzt, anschließend zur Konsultation eine Rechtsvorschrift zur Einführung eines digitalen Euros vorschlagen, so muss dieser Vorschlag zwingend das ordentliche Gesetzgebungsverfahren durchlaufen. Das bedeutet, dass er vom Europäischen Parlament und dem Rat der Europäischen Union eingehend geprüft werden muss. Hierbei sind die Abgeordneten des EP in ihren entsprechenden Beratungen und Beschlussfassungen frei und unabhängig in der Ausübung ihres Mandates und sind weder an Aufträge noch an Weisungen gebunden.

Selbstverständlich können Sie sowohl die Abgeordneten als auch die Mitglieder des parlamentarischen Ausschusses für Wirtschaft und Währung (ECON) unmittelbar kontaktieren, um ihnen Ihre Einschätzungen zu diesem Themengebiet mitzuteilen.

Darüber hinaus möchten wir Sie darauf hinweisen, dass Sie als EU-Bürger das Recht haben, beim EP eine Petition zu einem Thema einzureichen, das in den Tätigkeitsbereich der Europäischen Union fällt und Sie unmittelbar betrifft. Weitere Informationen zur Einreichung einer Petition finden Sie auf dem Petitionsportal der Webseite „Petitionen“ des EP.

Written by Vadim Kononenko,

As ‘green transitions’ become real political goals, what role can artificial intelligence (AI) play in helping to achieve them?

© Adobe Stock

While some argue that AI can potentially be useful or even indispensable in ‘green transitions’, important questions remain open. Should AI only be used in resolving specific problems (for example, intelligent pollinating robots replacing a declining bee population), or should it be employed in ‘governing’ the sustainability of complex socio-economic systems such as mobility, or food or energy supply? While the latter option is currently technically unattainable and may be ethically dubious , it marks the axis of a political debate about possible synergies between sustainability and AI.

Potential impacts and developments

In recent years, sustainability and AI have both been high on the EU’s political agenda. The European Commission has advanced in the preparation of a White Paper on AI and the European Parliament has launched a special committee on AI in the digital age (AIDA). Several significant reports have recently been adopted or are currently being debated in Parliament’s committees, including a civil liability regime for AI, a framework for ethical aspects of AI, and intellectual property rights for AI technologies. With regard to sustainability, Parliament adopted a taxonomy of ‘green’ investments in June 2020. In 2019, the Commission included the implementation of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the mandate of every Commissioner. The UN SDGs were also included in the European Semester process, as part of the European economic governance framework. In March 2019, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the EU’s implementation and delivery of the SDGs, calling on the Commission to work out a comprehensive SDG implementation strategy.

So far, these two issues – AI and sustainability – have not been linked in terms of concrete policies. However, in the context of the massive economic fallout brought about by the Covid‑19 pandemic, building a ‘sustainable and digital Europe’, promised in Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s political guidelines, remains a big challenge. Perhaps potential synergies between AI and sustainability could help the EU face this challenge?

It is instructive to put this question in the wider context of a policy debate that concerns both sustainability and AI. This debate oscillates between two images of sustainability and AI that can be described as ‘weak’ and ‘strong’.

• ‘Weak sustainability‘ means that loss of natural capital is certainly regrettable and to be avoided, but it could be substituted by man-made capital, especially if helped by technological innovation. ‘Strong sustainability’ implies that human activity and its growth should not exceed the ‘planetary boundaries’, i.e. the capacity of the planet to sustain human life.
• Similarly, there can be ‘weak’ and ‘strong AI’. The latter is usually understood as ‘superintelligence‘, for example AI systems that would eventually be able to act and make decisions without human intervention on an infinite range of complex issues.

In the long term, the role of AI in sustainability policies will depend on two factors. One factor concerns whether a stronger view on sustainability will underpin future policies. For example, even if the EU succeeds in going carbon neutral by 2050, it does not mean that all of the sustainability goals will be reached. In fact, the current UN SDGs (and by extension the EU’s own sustainability goals) have been criticised as favouring weak sustainability. Another factor has to do with the technological development of AI itself. So far it does not seem as if superintelligence will emerge any time soon, however the speed of AI development has been impressive. Whether and when such systems become technologically possible, the ultimate choice will lie in the realm of politics and ethics. It is highly unlikely that someone would advocate a ‘strong-strong’ solution – delegating the power over decision-making on sustainability issues to super-intelligent machines – but it is worthwhile to imagine possible ethical safeguards should this option ever become real.

In the near term, a more pragmatic step would be to get a better understanding of links between AI and the three main domains of sustainability: social, economic and environmental. A recent study by McKinsey for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) shows that current applications of AI can be found to a greater extent in the domain of social sustainability (such as in health and education). As to economic sustainability, the potential of AI to drive the circular economy appears to be substantial. AI can help, for example, in the development of new products, components and materials. It can also optimise logistics and inventory, and provide ‘smart management’ tools. Most importantly, AI could help tackle the negative effects of automation on employment by creating new jobs.

Finally, environmental sustainability is an area where AI has proven to be extremely helpful, with a very wide range of applications. One of the most recent discoveries made thanks to AI was the new understanding of how long it would take for global temperatures to react to a decline in man-made CO2 emissions. This temperature lag has proven to be much faster than previously thought. However, perhaps the main contribution of AI to sustainability overall is that it might provide tools for better understanding the interconnectedness of the environment, society and economy. The more AI proliferates in different sectors, the more its effects can be traced and understood with the help of machine learning. In turn, this expands our understanding of what ‘weak’ or ‘strong’ sustainability may entail in practice.

Anticipatory policy-making

The world is only beginning to understand and anticipate how AI can be used in the three domains of sustainability and what its effects might be. While China and the United States of America have been doing a lot of advanced research and development on AI in general, it is the EU that may be better placed to test the applicability of AI in the domains of sustainability. The Commission initiatives on ‘green and digital’ Europe could provide the ground for such anticipatory work. Several elements would benefit anticipatory policy-making on AI and sustainability:

Develop a common data management framework of AI uses throughout the EU sustainability agenda. As argued elsewhere, without a common EU sustainability data management framework (including collecting, sharing and analysis), the application of AI technologies will remain patchy. Data accessibility across the EU and interoperability of AI systems is an important issue.

Think systemically. The proliferation of AI in the economy, society and environment does not automatically lead to an overall improvement in sustainability. A systemic anticipatory approach would entail thinking of applying AI in complex socio-economic systems. For example, the food system would use economic, environmental and social indicators, including not just the reduction of CO2 emissions but also people’s well-being resulting from changes in their food consumption. AI could help to understand how one indicator is connected to another.

Human behaviour is key. Both using AI and caring about sustainability entails changes to human behaviour across generations. Anticipatory policies could include measures to limit the gap between generations and enhance trust in adjusting behavioural patterns.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘What if AI could help us become ‘greener’?‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘What if AI could help us become ‘greener’?’ on YouTube.