European Union

There is no justification for Europeans to continue doing business with Iran. A clear-eyed evaluation should lead any responsible actor to steer clear of the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism and the bankroller of slaughter and misery in Syria.

While the EU has played for time, delaying the EU enlargement process largely because of its own problems, the geopolitical context has changed, writes Vladimir Krulj.

Europe’s socialist parties on Saturday (8 December) chose Dutch politician Frans Timmermans to lead them in May elections and to succeed his boss Jean-Claude Juncker as head of the European Commission. Delegates voted in Timmermans, currently first vice president of the EU’s powerful...

At COP24 climate talks in Katowice, Poland, four out of the six newly-announced sponsors are coal and gas companies, including Europe's largest coking coal producer JSW.

The EU Copyright Directive, which is currently being finalised by the Council and the European Parliament, must include a principle of fair and proportionate remuneration to be fit for the 21st century film and TV industry, writes Cécile Despringre.  

The European Commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, has yet to be heard on the forced eviction of the Central European University from Budapest to Vienna. Just months before crucial European parliament elections, EU leaders should not shy away from this debate.

Bulgarian deputy Prime Minister Krassimir Karakachanov stated on Saturday (8 December) that he would not let Macedonia join the EU and NATO, reacting to recent statements by the Macedonian PM Zoran Zaev about the Macedonian language that have also infuriated Athens.

The circular economy is taking on more and more significance but a potential clash is looming between maximising the potential of our waste and safeguarding human health.

Europe's chemical management rules, REACH, are over a decade old and the man seen as the architect of the legislation still thinks it is the most modern of its kind in the world. But the former boss of the European Chemicals Agency says the EU could do with going back to the drawing board.

Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel relaunched his government on Sunday (9 December) as a minority administration after the biggest party in his coalition quit in a dispute over signing the UN migration compact.

Risks lurk along the whole pathway of low-carbon transitions, writes Stefan Bößner. Things might get worse before they get better. But, given the climate urgency, there is no time to wait, he argues.

Innovation will be required across all sectors of the economy in order to steer Europe towards climate neutrality. This will also be good for the EU’s competitiveness, write Jakop Dalunde and Peter Sweatman.

French far-right leader Marine Le Pen and Steve Bannon, a former advisor to US President Donald Trump, denounced the UN migration compact at an event hosted by Vlaams Belang in the Flemish parliament in Brussels on Saturday (8 December).

Armenia confirmed journalist-turned-politician Nikol Pashinyan as prime minister on Sunday (9 December) as voters handed him a landslide victory and banished the former ruling party from parliament, after nearly two decades in power.

Written by Joanna Apap,

© igor / Fotolia

The promotion and protection of human rights is a core and founding value of the EU and is at the heart of multilateralism – a central pillar of both the European Union and the United Nations system.

The international community observes 10 December annually, since 1948, as Human Rights Day – the day the United Nations General Assembly adopted, in 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This year, the celebrations will be even more significant, as 2018 marks the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 25th anniversary of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, and the 20th anniversary of the UN Human Rights Defenders Declaration. It is also the 30th anniversary of the European Parliament’s Sakharov prize. Awarded since 1988, the annual Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought is one of the ways that the European Parliament (EP) supports human rights.

The Sakharov prize is awarded to individuals who have made an exceptional contribution to the fight for human rights across the globe, drawing attention to human rights violations as well as supporting the laureates and their cause. Oleg Sentsov (1976-), this year’s Sakharov prize laureate is a Ukrainian film director, who was detained on 10 May 2014 at Simferopol, Crimea, and sentenced to 20 years in prison on charges of plotting terrorist acts against Russian ‘de facto’ rule in Crimea. Amnesty International described the court process as ‘an unfair trial before a military court’. Sentsov was sentenced because he opposed the illegal and forced annexation of part of his country by its belligerent neighbour, in a blatant violation of international law, and Russian international and bilateral commitments. His conviction has become a powerful symbol of the fate of the approximately 70 Ukrainian citizens illegally arrested and convicted to long prison sentences by the Russian occupying forces in the Crimean peninsula following its annexation

As part of its actions in support of human rights, the European Parliament debates and adopts an annual report on human rights and democracy in the world. Human rights and the promotion of democracy worldwide are top priorities for the EP, and fall under the remit of its Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET), together with its sub-committee on Human Rights (DROI). AFET’s own-initiative report on the 2017 annual report on human rights and democracy in the world and the European Union’s policy on the matter (rapporteur: Petras Auštrevičius, ALDE, Lithuania) was adopted by the Committee on 12 November 2018, and is due to be debated and voted in plenary session on 11 and 12 December respectively. The report includes the opinion of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (FEMM). In 2017, human rights were very much at the heart of the European Union’s external action. However, 2017 also saw a continued backlash, worldwide, against civil society, particularly journalists, a rise in misinformation and growing populism. The AFET reports calls for the continuous mainstreaming of human rights throughout the EU’s work both internally and externally. To improve the EU’s response to human rights challenges in third countries and in its neighbourhood, the report emphasises such areas as development, migration, security, counter-terrorism, women’s rights, combatting all forms of discrimination, enlargement and trade, as these require further political commitment and additional efforts to empower local actors, including the reinforcement of civil society and the protection of human rights defenders.

Further to its previous resolutions on annual reports on human rights and also its recent resolutions (amongst others): Addressing refugee and migrant movements: the role of EU external action (5 April 2017); Addressing shrinking civil society space in developing countries (3 October 2017); Progress on UN Global compacts for safe, orderly and regular migration and on refugees (18 April 2018); Media pluralism and media freedom in the European Union (3 May 2018); Parliament remains committed to improving its own procedures, processes and structures on human rights, to ensure that human rights and democracy are at the core of its actions and policies.

See below for the European Parliamentary Research Service‘s most recent publications on human rights, which provide background information and analysis on the core principles in this area:

• Apap J., Adorna Diaz D., Urbina Trevino D., A global compact on migration: Placing human rights at the heart of migration management, European Parliamentary Research Service, European Parliament, December 2017.
• Apap J., Annual report on human rights and democracy in the world 2017 (please add link), European Parliamentary Research Service, European Parliament, December 2018.
• Apap J., Indivisibility of Human Rights: Unifying the two Covenants on Human Rights?, European Parliamentary Research Service, European Parliament, November 2018.
• Apap J., One step forward and two steps back for human rights in the world, European Parliamentary Research Service, European Parliament, March 2018.
• Apap J., The concept of ‘climate refugee’: Towards a possible definition, European Parliamentary Research Service, European Parliament, May 2018.
• Apap J., United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), European Parliamentary Research Service, European Parliament, March 2018.
• Bentzen N., Zamfir I., Award of the Sakharov Prize, European Parliamentary Research Service, European Parliament, December 2018.
• Ioannides I.,The Trade Pillar in the EU-Central America Association Agreement, European Parliamentary Research Service, European Parliament, October 2018.
• Perchoc P., Freedom of conscience around the world, European Parliamentary Research Service, European Parliament, April 2018.
• Prpic M., Shreeves R., Zamfir I., EU policies – Delivering for citizens: Human Rights, European Parliamentary Research Service, European Parliament, November 2018.
• Salm C., Major sporting events versus human rights: Parliament’s position on the 1978 FIFA World Cup in Argentina and the 1980 Moscow Olympics, European Parliamentary Research Service, European Parliament, June 2018.
• Zamfir I., EU policies – Delivering for citizens: EU support for democracy and peace in the world, European Parliamentary Research Service, European Parliament, October 2018.
• Zamfir I., EU support for human rights defenders around the world, European Parliamentary Research Service, European Parliament, November 2018
• Zamfir I., Human rights in EU trade policy: Unilateral measures applied by the EU, European Parliamentary Research Service, European Parliament, May 2018.
• Zamfir I., International Criminal Court: Achievements and challenges 20 years after the adoption of the Rome Statute, European Parliamentary Research Service, European Parliament, July 2018.
• Zamfir I., Sakharov Prize: Voices of humanity, European Parliamentary Research Service, European Parliament, May 2018.
• Zamfir I., The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its relevance for the European Union, European Parliamentary Research Service, European Parliament, November 2018.
• Zamfir I., Towards a binding international treaty on business and human rights, European Parliamentary Research Service, European Parliament, October 2018.
• Zamfir I., Towards a global compact on refugees: Strengthening international cooperation to ease the plight of refugees in the world, European Parliamentary Research Service, European Parliament, June 2018.

The EU issued a declaration on the occasion of the human rights day (10 December 2018) which this year marks the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Germany's ruling CDU chose Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer as its new chairperson to replace Angela Merkel on Friday (7 December), in a move that raised some doubts about which path the country's biggest party aims to take to stave off challenges from the left and the right. EURACTIV Germany reports.

Written by Lieve Van Woensel with Jens Van Steerteghem,

‘Gene drive’ is best known for its capacity to suppress malaria by eradicating mosquito populations. However, its applications reach even further, including through its potential to eliminate other insect-transmitted diseases, erase herbicide and pesticide resistance in weeds and pests, and remove invasive species from ecosystems. It is worth looking into these potential benefits, while also weighing the significant risks involved in gene drive use.

fotolia

A gene drive is a technique for manipulating ecosystems by introducing self-propagating custom genes among a population of sexually reproducing organisms, using the CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technology. This recent revolutionary technology grants scientists nearly endless possibilities for manipulating genes and genomes with high efficiency and ease, and at a low cost. The specific CRISPR-Cas9 set-up used can subvert normal inheritance rules in order to bias a custom gene so that it is inherited at a frequency higher than the normal 50 % (sometimes up to 100 %) – an effect produced by other genetic mechanisms in nature as well. Researchers can then insert this set-up into the genome of a number of initiator organisms and release them into the wild, causing the custom gene to spread and perform its function throughout a growing fraction of the population. This gene may induce a variety of effects on the targeted organism, such as fatal development problems, change of sex, sterility, increased resistance to parasites, decreased resistance to pesticides or herbicides, etc. Instead of introducing a custom gene, the drive may also alter the organism by disrupting a natural gene, such as one that performs a critical development role.

While the idea of gene drives has been around since 2003, they only became practicable in 2013 with the advent of CRISPR-Cas9. Gene drives have proven to be successful in lab tests on mosquitoes and fruit flies, but less so on mice, showing room for improvement. So far, no gene drives have been released into wild populations. Current research focuses on combating malaria by reducing mosquito populations or their ability to transfer the malaria parasite, and on eradicating rodents that cause major damage to the endemic flora and fauna on the islands they invade.

Since the above-mentioned technology modifies the germline of the species, i.e. the genetic material that passes onto the next generation, this practice raises a host of ethical considerations. Are we willing to take on the risk of introducing irreversible and unintended changes in the genome of a species, or even of unleashing an environmental catastrophe through carelessness? Is assuming such a risk justified by the fact that in so doing we could eradicate insect-transmitted diseases and thereby prevent 700 000 deaths per year? Or by the fact that we could manipulate ecosystems to better withstand invasive species – eradicating them in a humane way – and thereby increase productivity of farmland? Many feel that using gene drive technology to eradicate species or populations of organisms is wrong, but others argue that it can help us prevent the extinction of others. In any case, an open, well-informed debate including all stakeholders is crucial before deciding on regulation and implementation.

Potential impacts and developments

Potential gene drive applications include reducing or eradicating insect-transmitted diseases such as malaria, dengue, Zika, Lyme, schistosomiasis and others; removing herbicide resistance in weeds or pesticide resistance in insects; inserting pesticide or parasite resistance in vulnerable populations (think of bees suffering from Varroa mites and pesticide use, and the decline of amphibia due to Chytrid fungus); inserting vulnerabilities to harmless molecules in pests, making (local) eradication easier; and suppressing populations of invasive species, weeds and pests (e.g. fruit flies, aphids). However, these potential benefits are not free of hazards. Ecologists are very unsure about the potential impact of suppressing or eradicating populations of organisms on ecosystems. The gene drive may spread globally and cause unwanted extinctions; accidental releases from research labs are likely; failure of the drive to eradicate a population may leave genetic residues such as a skewed sex ratio; and the still significant off-target effects of CRISPR-Cas9 may cause unwanted mutations. Furthermore, harmful mutations could occur in the gene drive itself that would ride along and spread, and possible non-target effects may cause the gene drive to spread horizontally to other species. Lastly, drives might be used as a biological weapon or in bioterrorism.

As an answer to these risks, scientists are developing safeguards and preventive measures in the form of temporally and locally limited gene drives (known as daisy drives); reversal drives that use a second gene drive to reverse effects of a first drive; and immunising drives that spread through a population of organisms and immunise them against other drives. Future research may also produce drives that respond to certain environmental stimuli that are triggered, for example, when the targeted pest eats certain crops. In addition, nature has its own defences in the form of evolution. Resistance to drives will often already be present in wild populations or will occur after some time, by rapidly spreading through populations and stopping the drive systems. With this in mind, gene drives may be better suited as an additional tool alongside traditional approaches to fighting diseases and conservation, with new drives designed whenever resistance is acquired. There are ways to increase the potency of a drive so as to make resistance unlikely to evolve in the first place, but this may bring along consequences we are not willing to face.

So what are the potential positive impacts for the EU? There are currently 49 invasive alien species of Union concern causing damage worth billions of euros to the EU economy. Suppressing or eradicating these species from EU soil would improve ecosystem services crucial to many sectors. Drives may also reduce our reliance on herbicides and pesticides in agriculture, by removing tolerance in weeds and pests. Among the diseases within the EU that are targetable by gene drives, Lyme disease occupies a prominent place, given that more than 360 000 cases of persons suffering from it have been reported over the past two decades. When it comes to negative impacts for the EU, hostile nations could use gene drives as a biological weapon to target keystone species in order to damage European ecosystems (e.g. pollinators such as bees). As gene drives are so inexpensive and relatively easy to engineer, bioterrorism is also an issue the EU should consider. As a side note, no major risks are attached to gene drives being released in crops and livestock or humans, since these are slow to spread and easy to monitor due to the long reproduction cycles.

Anticipatory policy-making

There are concerns that the privatisation of gene drive technology without strict regulation could lead to an ecological cacophony of drives targeting whatever insects or plants industry labels as ‘pests’. Agribusiness incentives tend to focus on the short term and are of a profit-driven nature. Mainstreaming the use of gene drives will therefore likely happen through the prevalence of economic interests over those of local communities, which will have to face the potential harms or side effects. In this context, one of the inventors of the CRISPR-based gene drive calls for the exclusive non-profit exploitation of the technology.

Gene drives fall under EU GMO legislation, which includes Regulation (EC) 1946/2003. The latter translates the UN Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity into EU law, and details procedures for handling transboundary movements of GMOs. In November 2018, the convention refrained from establishing a moratorium on gene drive, instead building stronger precautions in terms of research. Risk assessment/management and the consent of involved communities are now central to regulation.

As regulation will always lag behind technological developments, researchers’ responsibility is important, making sure there are possibilities for cooperation among them, rather than incentives to conceal results and information for fear of being ‘scooped’ and of missing the chance to see one’s work published.

Read this At a glance on ‘What if we genetically engineered an entire species?‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Main agenda items, approximate timing, public sessions and press opportunities.

Weekly schedule of President Donald Tusk 10-16 December 2018