European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

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

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

© potowizard / Fotolia

Air traffic in the EU is rising, with 973 million passengers carried in 2016. Despite aircraft being 75% less noisy now than 30 years ago, they are still a major noise source. Studies suggest that living close to an airport may lead to health problems like heart disease and strokes, sleep disturbance, stress or hearing impairment.

If you live near an airport, you will be pleased to know that the EU is taking this problem seriously. According to its general rules on environmental noise, authorities must inform the public about the impacts of noise pollution and consult on planned measures. The EU has also adopted specific legislation establishing a clear procedure for the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at its airports, with more involvement of local communities. Its aim is to balance air transport needs with those of airport neighbours, by lowering noise levels through the use of modern aircraft, better land-use planning, quieter ground operations and restrictions on night-time flying. The EU has also helped to limit noise by introducing common rules on civil aviation, and rules for the environmental certification of aircraft, as well as by regulating the operation of certain aeroplanes.

Finally, the EU co-finances research projects on issues such as innovative methodologies and technologies for reducing aircraft noise (IMAGE), aviation noise impact management through novel approaches (ANIMA), environmental impacts at airport level (CLAIRPORT), aircraft noise reduction technologies (ARTEM) or lower aircraft noise with new engines (ENOVAL).

Further information

• European Aviation Environmental Report 2016, https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/european-aviation-environmental-report-2016-72dpi.pdf
• Directive 2002/49/EC relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32002L0049
• Regulation (EU) No 598/2014 on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Union airports within a Balanced Approach, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32014R0598

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

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

© carlosgardel / Fotolia

Eight and a half million EU workers (3.6 % of the EU’s active population) either work or are looking for a job in another EU country, as permanent workers, cross-border workers or posted workers. The free movement of workers is one of the four fundamental freedoms enshrined in the EU treaties and a core element of EU citizenship, but is also key to completing the monetary union and the single market. Nevertheless, European workers move less than their US or Australian counterparts. Many are afraid of losing their social or pension rights or of being exploited. Others face language or cultural barriers or difficulties in getting their professional qualifications recognised.

The EU has taken several measures to make it easier for workers to move around. One of them, EURES (European network of Employment Services), is a network designed to facilitate free movement within the EU plus Switzerland, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, and to match workers with employers. Better social security coordination between countries now makes it possible to enjoy pension and social security rights all over Europe. The common rules on the recognition of professional qualifications have been updated. A European platform set up to combat undeclared work and the (ongoing) enforcement of the rules on posted workers aim to protect the rights of workers and fight against social dumping. All these initiatives are designed to help workers move around more easily but also to promote the welfare and productivity of mobile workers when they are working in another EU country.

Further information

• EPRS publication on ‘Amending social security coordination’, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/599322/EPRS_BRI%282017%29599322_EN.pdf
• EPRS publication on Posting of Workers Directive’, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/582043/EPRS_BRI%282016%29582043_EN.pdf
• European Commission’s Directorate General for Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion website, 2016 annual report on intra-EU labour mobility
• European Commission’s Directorate General for Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion website, 2017 annual report on intra-EU labour mobility.

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

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

© De Visu / Fotolia

While EU laws protect you as a consumer against many misleading and aggressive commercial practices, they provide special protection for consumers who are particularly vulnerable due to their mental or physical infirmity. EU laws forbid sellers to profit from such disadvantages to get consumers to buy something they would not buy normally.

Some practices often used to prey on vulnerable consumers are now banned completely. EU laws ban sales techniques that impair the average consumer’s freedom of choice through harassment, coercion use of physical force, or by exploiting their unfortunate circumstances.

For instance, Europe has banned vendors from trying to make you believe you cannot leave a place without buying something. Equally, visiting your home, despite a request to leave or not to return, is also banned. Creating a false impression that you have won a prize, when there is no prize to be won, or that you have to advance money or buy something before claiming the prize, is also not allowed. Similarly, including an invoice seeking payment in marketing material that gives you the impression you have already ordered a product is also forbidden.

In addition, EU laws recognise vulnerable consumers as a special category in the context of energy poverty, referring to people that are not able to pay their energy bills, especially for heating and cooling. EU countries have to introduce measures to help such consumers, such as banning heating disconnection in winter or introducing social tariffs for electricity and gas.

Further information

• European Commission, Unfair commercial practices, https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/unfair-treatment/unfair-commercial-practices/index_en.htm
• European Commission, Energy Poverty Observatory, energypoverty.eu

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© rea_molko / Fotolia

The run-up to the European Parliament elections on 23-26 May has intensified debate about the state of the European Union, the challenges it faces and the reforms needed, both to strengthen its resilience and to enhance its international role. Many analysts focus on the rise of anti-establishment movements and a perceived divide between the east and west of the Union regarding adherence to EU values and the rule of law. Some others discuss whether the EU should have more competence in areas such as defence, international relations, migration and taxation.

This note offers links to reports and commentaries from some major international think-tanks and research institutes on the state of the Union, proposed reforms and other issues being discussed ahead of the European elections.

Studies and commentaries on Brexit can be found in a previous item in the series. Papers on economic challenges faced by the EU and the euro area are available in still another. Some further analyses on the European elections can be found in a ‘What think tanks are thinking’ published in January.

The state of Europe
Friends of Europe, March 2019

The EU Global Strategy 2020
Egmont, March 2019

The changing global order and its implications for the EU
Finnish Institute of International Affairs, March 2019

L’Union européenne, grande absente des journaux télévisés
Fondation Jean Jaurès, March 2019

Germany’s options for European policy reform: Instruments for progressive EU economic and social policy
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, March 2019

No end in sight for the EU’s democracy and rule of law crisis
German Marshall Fund, March 2019

Hungary’s systematic threat to the EU core values
Clingendael, March 2019

Is Europe doing enough to protect its democracy?
Carnegie Europe, March 2019

La triste dérive de la France et de l’Allemagne
Institute Montaigne, March 2019

What comes after the last chance Commission? Policy priorities for 2019-2024
Centre for European Policy Studies, February 2019

Élections européennes 2019: Les grands débats
Institut français des relations internationales, January 2019

The 2019 European election: How anti-Europeans plan to wreck Europe and what can be done to stop it
European Council on Foreign Relations, February 2019

Shaking up the 2019 European election: Macron, Salvini, Orbán, and the fate of the European party system
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, February 2019

The European Council’s strategic agenda
Clingendael, February 2019

Joining forces: The way towards the European Defence Union
European Political Strategy Centre, February 2019

The European Court of Justice: Do all roads lead to Luxembourg?
Centre for European Policy Studies, February 2019

Shaping power: A strategic imperative for Europe
European Policy Centre, February 2019

Sleeping with the enemy: The dangers for Europe of accommodating nationalists
European Council on Foreign Relations, February 2019

Consultations citoyennes: Transformer l’essai
Confrontations Europe, February 2019

Italy in the EU: Shared priorities, provocative politics
European Council on Foreign Relations, February 2019

Austria’s toughest EU presidency
European Council on Foreign Relations, February 2019

Europa: Brauchen wir das noch oder kann das weg? Wie schauen junge Deutsche vor der Europawahl 2019 auf Europa und die EU?
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, January 2019

The resurgence of bilateral diplomacy in Europe
Egmont, January 2019

Is the EU a Union of values?
Clingendael, January 2019

A European Security Council: Added value for EU Foreign and Security Policy?
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, January 2019

What political role for the EU’s fundamental rights agency?
Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies, January 2019

The Treaty of Aachen: New impetus for Franco-German defense cooperation?
Institut français des relations internationales, January 2019

Vers une intégration des économies française et allemande? Les ambitions du traité franco-allemand d’Aix-la-Chapelle
Institut français des relations internationales, January 2019

Non-euro countries in the EU after Brexit
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, January 2019

Euros for oil: A first step, but towards what?
European Policy Centre, January 2019

The German-French Treaty: Sign of strength or of weakness?
LUISS School of European Political Economy, January 2019

Voting methods and issues at stake in the European elections of May 2019
Fondation Robert Schuman, Centre Kantar, December 2018

Taking stock on future of the EU according to Macron: Perspective from the V4
EUROPEUM, February 2019

An EU New Year’s resolution: Keep boosting the Single Market
European Policy Centre, December 2018

When populism meets nationalism: Reflections on parties in power
Istituto per gli Studi di Politica Internazionale, December 2018

EU agencies after 25 years
Clingendael, December 2018

Reconnecting European political parties with European Union citizens
International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, December, 2018

Safeguarding democracy in the European Union: A study on a European responsibility
Heinrich Böll Stiftung, December 2018

Europe in disarray
Council on Foreign Relations, December 2018

Populism in Central Europe 2018
Austrian Society for European Politics, December 2018

The future of EU science diplomacy: Conceptual and strategic reflections
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, December 2018

Security and defence policy: An agenda for 2019-2024
Wilfried Martens Centre, November 2018

Direct democracy in the EU: The myth of a citizens’ union
Centre for European Policy Studies, November 2019

Getting Europe’s direct democracy right
Carnegie Europe, November 2018

The European citizens’ consultations: Evaluation report
European Policy Centre, November 2018

Millennial dialogue on Europe: Shaping the new EU agenda
Foundation for European Progressive Studies, November 2018

Was 2018 der Demokratie in der EU gebracht hat : Und worauf es jetzt ankommt
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, November 2018

Shadows over the European elections: Three scenarios for EU-sceptical parties after the 2019 elections
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, November 2018

Angela Merkel’s gradual retreat: What does it mean for Europe?
European Policy Centre, November 2018

Reconciling core state power integration with market regulation? The potential of the Macron-Rutte alliance
Center for European Neighborhood Studies, November 2018

EU scenarios for 2027
Real Instituto Elcano, October 2018

The power of the past: How nostalgia shapes European public opinion
Bertelsmann Stiftung, October 2018

Strengthening cohesion in the EU: How can structural reforms contribute?
European Policy Centre, October 2018

The four ‘classical federalisms’
Wilfried Martens Centre, October 2018

Attentes et ressentis, l’état des opinions publiques avant les élections européennes
Notre Europe, October 2018

The Nordic-Baltic region in the EU: A loose club of friends
Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies, October 2018

Spitzenkandidaten and shifting electorates: towards the 2019 EP elections
Institute for Development and International Relations, September 2018

State of the Union 2018: Our destiny in our hands
European Political Strategy Centre, September 2018

One size does not fit all: European integration by differentiation
Bruegel, September 2018

Read this briefing note on ‘State of the Union: Spring 2019‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Clare Ferguson,

European Parliament (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

European citizens are running out of patience with companies and people who do not pay their fair share of the taxes that support services for everyone. The agenda for Parliament’s second plenary session of March opens with a debate on Monday evening on the report of Parliament’s TAX3 Special Committee on the progress made and the work still to do to tackle financial crimes, tax evasion and tax avoidance. In response to successive scandals highlighting the extent of the issue, the committee proposes greater scrutiny over Member States’ tax systems, including the role of loopholes such as letterbox companies; stronger investigatory capabilities; and greater recourse at national level against money laundering activities.

With a view to reassuring EU citizens that taxpayers’ money is properly managed, all EU institutions are required to present their ‘accounts’ for scrutiny on an annual basis. Parliament then makes its ‘discharge’ decisions based on Budgetary Control (CONT) committee reports on the European Court of Auditors’ annual assessment and the Council’s recommendations. Most of Tuesday afternoon will therefore be taken up with a joint debate and vote on 53 reports recommending whether or not to agree to discharge the 2017 budget for the European Commission and all executive agencies, as well as EU joint undertakings (public-private partnerships) and decentralised agencies and the other EU institutions. This year, CONT proposes to grant discharge to the Commission and to all six executive agencies, as well as to all eight joint undertakings – subject to some improvements in financial management. The committee recommends granting discharge to all but one of the 32 agencies – the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) – in the light of irregularities uncovered by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF).

While the focus on economic, single market and climate change, external relations and disinformation had to make way for further discussion on Brexit at the European Council meeting of 21 and 22 March 2019, (Members are due to hear European Council and Commission statements on the conclusions on Wednesday morning), Parliament will debate a number of salient issues during this session.

One of these, possibly bringing two years of negotiation to a close, concerns a debate on a compromise agreement on copyright in the digital single market on Tuesday morning. This highly contentious file deals with the opportunities and drawbacks of creating, producing, distributing and exploiting content online, and the balance to be struck between remunerating creators and publishers, and protecting consumers. Between them, proposed Article 11 on the status of hyperlinks (press publishers’ rights) and Article 13 on the value gap (best known for the controversy over memes) have generated quite a few headlines. Although a text has been agreed, some EU Member States continue to oppose the compromise on the proposed new directive.

Members are also due to debate three sensitive files relating to overhauling the current legislation on road transport on Wednesday morning. Parliament had previously referred the three reports, on driving times, posting and cabotage, back to the Transport committee. However, the committee could only reach agreement on the cabotage file, which seeks to clarify the rules for international haulage operations, particularly on minimum turn-around times. Nevertheless, political groups will be able to table amendments to the proposals on social and market rules that seek to level the playing field between posted and local drivers and improve working conditions.

In a joint debate on Monday evening, Members debate compromise agreements on four proposals for new rules regarding the internal market for electricity. Squeezed between the necessity to respond to climate change and the need to guarantee affordable fuel supplies for citizens and businesses, the electricity market faces multiple challenges. The proposed changes to the rules would give consumers stronger rights when dealing with electricity suppliers, and provide extra protection for vulnerable consumers. Still on consumer rights, Parliament will also consider proposals to harmonise the EU rules on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers later on Monday evening. Although the proposed rules do not provide for the type of class action seen in the USA, they seek to make it easier for groups of consumers whose rights are violated to launch a collective action for redress, and to obtain compensation if successful. Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee is keen to ensure that the qualified representative entities that would be authorised to mount such actions (rather than lawyers) are required to disclose publicly how they are financed, organised and managed.

On Wednesday afternoon, Members return to the legislative proposals on reducing the impact of plastic products on the environment, particularly plastic marine litter. An agreement reached with Council extends bans on products beyond cutlery, plates, and straws to include oxo-degradable plastics and expanded polystyrene packaging. The proposals also set out annual collection rates for recycling plastic fishing gear, among other measures, which could ultimately become binding. Members are also likely to vote to formally adopt an agreement on a Commission proposal to transpose recommendations from the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean into EU law on Tuesday. The measures, supported in a Fisheries committee report, aim to encourage fish stock recovery and protect vulnerable habitats in the Adriatic, Alboran and Black Seas.

In another initiative to deter harmful effects on the environment on Wednesday afternoon, Members will debate an agreed text on CE-marked fertilising products. While inorganic fertilisers increase crop yields, they can also contain harmful chemicals, such as cadmium. The agreement proposes gradual reduction of the heavy metal content in fertilisers, with a longer transition, and to extend legislation to cover organic or recycled waste alternatives, ensuring a high level of protection of human, animal, and plant health, safety and the environment. Parliament will also vote on formal adoption of the next in a series of proposals to amend the Carcinogens and Mutagens Directive to protect workers against exposure to a further number of cancer- or mutation-causing chemical agents on Wednesday. The five priority chemical agents include formaldehyde, cadmium and arsenic, among others, and the measures seek to provide clarity in the workplace for workers and employers alike.

As it becomes more common for investors to consider the environmental sustainability of their economic activity, Members will debate the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment on Thursday morning. A joint report from Parliament’s Economic Affairs and Environment committees agrees that gradual harmonisation of what ‘environmentally sustainable’ actually means will help investors throughout the EU to ensure that their investments take account of the environmental impact over the entire value chain and the life-cycle of technologies. However, the committees’ report also warns against creating unnecessary administrative burden.

Finally, central counterparties provide guarantees on financial performance. In the light of the financial crisis, Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs wishes to ensure that this important role is fully supported with effective recovery plans. On Wednesday Members are to vote on proposals that central counterparty recovery and resolution include comprehensive stress-testing to avoid that central counterparties themselves become a systemic risk.

A list of all material prepared for this Plenary Session: New rules for the EU internal electricity market (available in DE – EN – ES – FR – IT – PL) Protecting workers against carcinogens and mutagens: Third proposal (available in DE – EN – ES – FR – IT – PL) Reducing marine litter from plastics (available in DE – EN – ES – FR – IT – PL) Copyright in the digital single market (available in DE – EN – ES – FR – IT – PL) CE-marked fertilising products (available in DE – EN – ES – FR – IT – PL) Central counterparty recovery and resolution (available in DE – EN – ES – FR – IT – PL) Representative actions for the protection of collective interests of consumers (available in DE – EN – ES – FR – IT – PL) TAX3 Special Committee report (available in DE – EN – ES – FR – IT – PL) Mediterranean fisheries management measures (available in DE – EN – ES – FR – IT – PL) A framework to facilitate sustainable investment (available in EN) Discharge for 2017 budget – European Commission and executive agencies (available in EN) Road transport: Social and market rules (available in EN) Discharge for 2017 budget – EU decentralised agencies and joint undertakings (available in EN)

Written by James McEldowney,

© aerostato / Fotolia

The common agricultural policy (CAP) is one of the oldest common policies in the EU. Its significance is reflected in the proportion of the EU’s budget devoted to it, representing approximately 40 % of the total. Developed at a time when Europe was unable to meet most of its own food needs, it was necessary to encourage farmers to produce food by means of guaranteed prices. The policy has undergone regular reform and has evolved over the years. These reforms have sought to improve the competitiveness of the agricultural sector, promote rural development and address new challenges in areas such as the environment and climate change.

Evidence from a series of Eurobarometer surveys indicates how EU citizens have a high level of awareness of this policy area. There is a recognition that it is succeeding in meeting citizens’ expectations in terms of delivering healthy high-quality food as well as contributing to the protection of the environment.

When it comes to agriculture, Parliament’s eighth term has focused on taking forward not only implementation of the last CAP reform in 2013 but also a series of significant legislative achievements. The areas covered include, for example, animal health, plant health and the organic sector, as well as a range of policy-related simplification measures that entered into force on 1 January 2018. On the non-legislative front, Parliament has pursued its scrutiny role rigorously.

Looking to the future, there are still a number of substantial issues for the current Parliament to address. These include determining in co-decision with the Council the future policy direction of the CAP for the post-2020 period, negotiations over the next multiannual financial framework (MFF) including the overall budgetary allocation for the next CAP, and the associated legislative framework.

Read this complete briefing on ‘EU policies – Delivering for citizens: Agriculture‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Elena Lazarou,

© niyazz / Fotolia

Security and defence policy in the European Union is predominantly a competence of the Member States. At the same time, a common security and defence policy, which could progressively lead to a European defence union, is enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty. Since 2016, there has been significant progress in that direction, with several initiatives in the area of security and defence having been proposed and initiated under the current mandate of the Commission and the European Parliament.

The idea that the European Union should deliver in the area of security and defence has become more and more popular with EU citizens. The crises in the EU’s eastern and southern neighbourhoods, such as the occupation of Crimea and conflicts in the Middle East, have created an environment of insecurity in which the EU is called upon to do more. Following the Council decision of 2013 and particularly since the launch of the EU global strategy in 2016, the EU had been working to respond to these needs predominantly by implementing in full the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty. In recent years, it has begun the implementation of ambitious initiatives in the area of security and defence, such as permanent structured cooperation (PESCO), the European defence action plan including a new defence fund to finance research and development of EU military capabilities, closer and more efficient cooperation with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a plan to facilitate military mobility within and across the EU, and a revision of the financing of its civilian and military missions and operations to make them more effective.

These new initiatives are illustrated in the relevant proposals in the new multiannual financial framework (2021-2027) and the accompanying off-budget instruments. Given EU leaders’ current support for further initiatives in EU security and defence policy, important debates are likely to take place in future on the possible progressive framing of a European defence union.

Read this complete briefing on ‘EU policies – Delivering for citizens: Security and defence‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Matthew Parry,

© TK99 / Fotolia

The principle of subsidiarity means that the European Union (EU) should act where it can do so more effectively than its constituent Member States individually, and this also holds true in the area of public finance – the EU’s budget together with off-budget tools for financing EU policies. At €160.1 billion in 2018 – or approximately 1 % of Member States’ collective gross national income (GNI) – the EU budget is a great deal smaller in relative terms than EU national governments’ budgets. It serves mainly as a vehicle for investment, particularly in the areas of rural and regional development, industrial research and support for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and political and economic development in neighbouring countries. These policies are designed to yield European public goods, with benefits that go beyond the national borders of individual EU countries. The Commission calculates that they do so for less than the cost of one cup of coffee a day per citizen.

During the 2014-2019 parliamentary term, the EU has been buffeted by challenges to its capacity to act, including financially, by geopolitical instability in the wider region, the migration and refugee crisis, and unresolved questions about the future of the euro, linked to the legacy of the economic, financial and sovereign debt crises. However, the EU has also seen several notable achievements. These include the update to the financial rules governing the use of EU funds, simplifying the rules and strengthening the focus on performance and results; the creation of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office to help address the roughly 0.35 % of the EU budget at risk of fraud; a mid-term revision of the multiannual financial framework (MFF), enhancing its flexibility to provide for a more responsive EU; the development of proposals for new sources of revenue in time for negotiations on the post-2020 MFF; and policy innovation in the field of financial engineering, helping EU finance go further by leveraging private investment.

The 2019 elections will mark a turning point in the future financing of EU policies, as negotiations on the next multiannual spending plan gather pace. The Commission has proposed a 2021-2027 MFF totalling 1.11 % of the post-Brexit EU-27’s GNI, and new sources of EU revenue to reduce the burden on national treasuries and forge a clearer link between revenue and policies. It also proposes to consolidate progress made in the current term with regard to budgetary flexibility, financial integrity and the rule of law, and in encouraging private investment in Europe.

Read this complete briefing on ‘EU policies – Delivering for citizens: Future financing of EU policies‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

EU budget and general government public spending (aggregate of EU Member States’) in the EU (2017, € billion)

Written by Joanna Apap and Anja Radjenovic,

© Alberto Masnovo / Fotolia

Refugee movements and migration are at the centre of global attention. In recent years, Europe has had to respond to the most severe migratory challenge since the end of the Second World War. The unprecedented arrival of refugees and irregular migrants in the EU, which peaked in 2015, exposed a series of deficiencies and gaps in EU policies on asylum, external borders and migration. In response to these challenges, the EU has embarked on a broader process of reform aimed at rebuilding its asylum and migration policies based on four pillars: reducing the incentives for irregular migration by addressing its root causes, improving returns and dismantling smuggling and trafficking networks; saving lives and securing the external borders; establishing a strong EU asylum policy, and providing more legal pathways for asylum-seekers and more efficient legal channels for regular migrants.

The record migratory flows to the EU witnessed during 2015 and 2016 had subsided by the end of 2017 and 2018. However, in order to deliver what the Commission calls an effective, fair and robust future EU migration policy, the EU, based on the Treaties and other legal and financial instruments, has been implementing both immediate and longer-term measures. Europe, due to its geographic position and its reputation as an example of stability, generosity and openness against a background of growing international and internal conflicts, climate change and global poverty, is likely to continue to represent an ideal refuge for asylum-seekers and migrants. This is also reflected in the growing amounts, flexibility and diversity of EU funding for migration and asylum policies inside as well as outside the current and future EU budget.

See also the parallel Briefing on ‘EU support for democracy and peace in the world’.

Visit the European Parliament homepage on migration in Europe.

Read this complete briefing on ‘EU policies – Delivering for citizens: The migration issue‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Nicole Scholz,

© Carlos David / Fotolia

Mobile phones are an integral part of everyday life, and it is hard to imagine a world without them. There are nevertheless health concerns, and the debate is ongoing.

There is a vast body of research on the potential risks from exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields such as those emitted by mobile phones. Yet scientific opinion remains split over the possibility of a link between mobile phone radiation and health problems. The results of research in this area have been interpreted in a variety of ways, and studies have been criticised for their methodological flaws, lack of statistical significance, and bias.

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization, classified radiofrequency electromagnet fields as possibly carcinogenic (cancer-causing) to humans. The European Union defined basic restrictions for limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields in Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC, setting maximum values that should not to be exceeded. Moreover, in view of the scientific uncertainty, the European Environment Agency advises taking a precautionary approach.

Two sets of large-scale experimental studies involving laboratory animals, one from the United States National Toxicology Program and another from the Italian Ramazzini Institute, have recently brought the debate to the fore again. Both found varying levels of evidence of certain tumours in some of the animals tested. The results have nevertheless prompted diverging conclusions.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Mobile phones and health: Where do we stand?‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Carmen-Cristina Cîrlig,

© tanaonte / Fotolia

In November 2018, the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom (UK) endorsed, at leaders’ level, an agreement that would ensure an orderly UK withdrawal from the EU on 30 March 2019, as well as a political declaration setting out the main parameters of the future EU-UK relationship.

The withdrawal agreement is an extensive legal document aiming, among other things, to preserve the essential rights of UK nationals living in the EU-27 and EU citizens living in the UK; to ensure that all financial commitments vis-à-vis the EU undertaken while the UK was a Member State are respected; and to conclude in an orderly manner ongoing processes in various areas (e.g. circulation of goods already on the market and ongoing judicial procedures). Importantly, the agreement establishes a 21-month transition period, extendable once, to help businesses and citizens to adapt to the new circumstances, and the EU and UK to negotiate their future partnership agreements. During this time, the UK will be treated as a Member State, but without any EU decision-making and representation rights. Furthermore, one of the agreement’s three protocols, the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland contains a legally operational ‘backstop’, aiming to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland in the future. It has long been the most contested aspect of the withdrawal deal. The political declaration, by contrast, is a non-binding text, providing the basis for future EU-UK economic and security cooperation, taking into account both sides’ red lines and principles.

With just days to go to the Brexit deadline, the procedures to approve the withdrawal deal have still not been finalised, due to continuing opposition within the UK Parliament. While extending the Article 50 negotiating period now appears highly likely, all scenarios are still possible, including the UK leaving the EU without a deal at the end of March 2019.

This Briefing updates the earlier EPRS paper on The EU-UK withdrawal agreement: Progress to date and remaining difficulties, of July 2018.

Please also visit the European Parliament homepage on Brexit negotiations.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Brexit: Understanding the withdrawal agreement and political declaration‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Ralf Drachenberg and Marko Vukovic,

© kamasigns / Fotolia

On 21 and 22 March 2019, the European Council was due to focus primarily on economic, single market and climate change issues, as well as on external relations and disinformation. Due to the second negative vote in the House of Commons on the withdrawal agreement, on 12 March, Brexit is now expected to dominate the agenda of EU Heads of State or Government again. An extra meeting of the European Council (Article 50) has been added to the programme, to discuss possible next steps in the process, including possibly deciding on an extension of the negotiation period.

Regarding jobs, growth and competitiveness, the European Council is expected to discuss the future development of the single market, the capital markets union, industrial policy and European digital policy, in preparation for the next strategic agenda. In the external relations field, the focus will be on the forthcoming EU-China summit.

1. Implementation: Follow-up on previous European Council commitments

The Leaders’ Agenda identified economic issues and trade as topics for the March 2019 European Council meeting. This is more or less reflected in the annotated draft agenda, which puts emphasis on jobs, growth and competitiveness. However, the issue of economic and monetary union (EMU), which was due to be discussed in a Leaders’ Agenda session at this European Council meeting, will most likely not be addressed. Moreover, this will be only the second formal meeting of EU Heads of State or Government since April 2015 at which migration is not on the agenda.

At the start of the meeting, following the address of the President of the European Parliament, Antonio Tajani, the President of Romania, Klaus Iohannis, whose country currently holds the presidency of the Council of Ministers, will provide an overview on the progress made in implementing previous European Council conclusions. In terms of previous European Council commitments, the most relevant for this meeting are the call for an in-depth discussion on the future development of the single market, and for the provision of guidance on the overall direction and political priorities on climate change.

Policy area Previous commitment Occasion on which the commitment was made Single market Hold an in-depth discussion on the future development of the Single Market and European digital policy in preparation for the next Strategic Agenda December 2018 Disinformation Continue work on this issue and report back to the European Council December 2018 Climate change Provide guidance on the overall direction and political priorities December 2018 2. European Council meeting Strengthening the economic base of the EU

At the March 2019 meeting, the Heads of State or Government will discuss the future development of the single market in all its dimensions. Building on the Commission’s communication on the internal market in a changing world, requested by the European Council to gauge progress on single market strategies, EU leaders will prepare the ground for the next strategic agenda for the single market, the European digital policy, capital markets union and industrial policy. A year ago, in its March 2018 conclusions, the European Council called ‘for increased efforts to deliver’ on the various single market strategies, and set yet another deadline for their completion by the end of the current legislative cycle. As underlined in the above-mentioned Commission communication, with only one third of the 67 legislative proposals already adopted as of November 2018, there is a need for renewed political commitment to the project.

Industrial policy is likely to be centre stage in the debate on competitiveness. In a Manifesto for a European industrial policy fit for the 21st Century, France and Germany called for a radical overhaul of the EU’s competition policy, to allow for the creation of European industrial champions. This initiative from February 2019 was triggered by the European Commission’s decision to block the merger of rail businesses owned by Germany’s Siemens and France’s Alstom. It also highlights the need for investment in new technologies (through InvestEU, the European Innovation Council and IPCEI) and the development of artificial intelligence (AI) in Europe.

Another contribution to the debate was provided in a February letter of 17 Heads of State or Government, from predominantly smaller Member States, to the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, as an input to the European Council’s next strategic agenda. It calls for an ‘offensive industrial policy to innovate and remain globally competitive in key technologies and strategic value chains’. Although, France and Germany stand out as not being among the signatories, both the manifesto and the letter focus on the challenges of digitalisation, artificial intelligence, where the EU needs to lead by unleashing the data economy, and the importance of integrated capital markets to finance investment and innovation.

The 17 also call for proper implementation and enforcement of the Services Directive. Professional qualifications should be guaranteed and Member States should commit to improving their performance in reducing service restrictiveness. As a contribution to the debate on services, Ireland, Finland, Denmark and the Czech Republic commissioned a report, ‘Making EU trade in services work for all’, published last November, which argues for more ambitious measures to remove obstacles to the cross-border provision of services in the EU. The report calls for full implementation and enforcement of the services directive which could, on a conservative estimate, add at least two per cent to the EU’s GDP.

The European Council is also expected to endorse the Council recommendation on the economic policy of the euro area, which is part of the 2019 European Semester exercise.

Climate change

The European Council is expected to give guidance and set the EU’s overall political priorities on climate policy. Climate change has regularly been on the agenda of the European Council in recent years, with EU leaders repeatedly reaffirming the EU’s commitment to the full implementation of the Paris Agreement. In response to a request formulated by the European Council in December 2018, and based on the European Commission communication, ‘A Clean Planet for all’, as well as a Presidency background note, the Council held ‘a policy debate on the EU’s long-term strategic vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate neutral economy’. The Romanian Presidency undertook to inform the President of the European Council of the outcome of the policy debate held in the Council.

External relations EU-China summit

The European Council will discuss the preparation of the forthcoming EU-China Summit, to be held in Brussels on 9 April 2019. The summit, which takes place annually, might address a wide range of issues of mutual interest, including security, trade, climate change, research and cultural cooperation, as part of the comprehensive strategic partnership defined by the EU-China 2020 Strategic Agenda for Cooperation. Ahead of the European Council meeting of 21-22 March, on 12 March 2019, the European Commission and the High Representative published a joint communication entitled ‘EU-China – A strategic outlook’. They call for ‘full unity’ of the EU and its Member States in their relations with China, and invite EU leaders to endorse a set of ten actions. Some of the actions have a broad scope, which would require strategic reflection on the rules and functioning of the internal market. This is notably the case for rules applicable to EU industrial policy, where several Member States have recently put forward a set of proposals (see above). China was previously on the agenda of the European Council in March 2017, as part of a broader debate on trade. EU leaders then stressed that trade relations ‘should be strengthened on the basis of a shared understanding of reciprocal and mutual benefits’.

Other items Fighting disinformation

Disinformation has been a regular item on the European Council agenda over the past year. In response to a request made by the European Council in June 2018, the European Commission and the High Representative presented an ‘action plan against disinformation‘ in December 2018. EU leaders then mandated the European Commission to start implementing the action plan and to continue work on countering disinformation, in particular through ‘decisive action at both European and national levels on securing free and fair European and national elections’. The Heads of State or Government are expected to take stock of progress made in the meantime, ahead of the European elections in May 2019.

25th anniversary of the European Economic Area (EEA)

EU Heads of State or Government will also hold an exchange of views with the prime ministers of Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, to mark the 25th anniversary of the EEA.

3. European Council (Article 50) meeting

On 21 March 2019, EU-27 leaders will also meet in a European Council (Article 50) format to discuss the latest developments in the process following the United Kingdom’s notification of its withdrawal under Article 50 TEU.

On 11 March 2019, in Strasbourg, UK Prime Minister, Theresa May, and the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, agreed on an instrument relating to the draft withdrawal agreement and on a joint statement supplementing the political declaration. President Juncker stressed that the instrument ‘provides meaningful clarifications and legal guarantees on the nature of the backstop’, thereby complementing the withdrawal agreement without reopening it.

On 12 March 2019, the withdrawal agreement, including the additional instrument, was defeated by 391 votes to 242 in the House of Commons. Following this second rejection of the negotiated withdrawal agreement, on 13 March, Members of the UK Parliament also voted to rule out a no-deal scenario. On 14 March, MPs voted by 413 to 202 in favour of a requesting an extension of the Article 50 negotiation period from the EU.

Following these developments, the European Council (Article 50) is now expected to assess the next steps, and possibly decide upon the request for an extension of the Article 50 negotiation period, if so requested by the UK Prime Minister. The Treaty on European Union (TEU) stipulates that the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, can decide unanimously to extend this period. President Tusk indicated that he would ‘appeal to the EU-27 to be open to a long extension if the UK finds it necessary to rethink its Brexit strategy and build consensus around it’.

Attending the European Parliament’s plenary debate, in advance of this upcoming European Council meeting, the Romanian Secretary of State for European Affairs, Melania Gabriela Ciot, representing the Council Presidency, stated that the European Council will require ‘credible justification’ by the UK government for a technical extension of the Article 50 negotiations. Similar reactions came from other EU leaders, including the Dutch Prime Minister, Mark Rutte, the European Commission President, Jean-Claude Juncker and the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk. The European Commission’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, reiterated that, if the UK wants to leave the EU in an orderly fashion, the negotiated withdrawal agreement is the only possible way. He also stressed that ’the responsibility for the Brexit decision belongs solely to the United Kingdom, and today the responsibility to find a way out of the impasse that the negotiations are in, lies fair and square with the United Kingdom’.

During the plenary debate, some MEPs expressed their regret that yet another European Council meeting would be dominated by the Brexit debate, and that, as a result, other more pressing issues for the EU would not receive the necessary attention. MEPs also stressed that a prerequisite for a prolongation was for the UK Government to specify concretely what it intends to use the time for

Written by Philip Boucher,

Anthony Intraversato on Unsplash

With the Cambridge Analytica scandal, it became clear how technologies such as social media and techniques such as psychological profiling can be combined in election campaigns with worrying effects. Digital forms of personalised political messaging can be highly automated. They start and end with social media, which provides both the data for categorising users and the medium for targeting them with personalised messages. Messages might be designed to favour a particular candidate or to encourage widespread discord and mistrust. In either case, it could lead to more polarised societies in which citizens share less common ground and are less understanding of those with different political ideologies, attitudes to populism, or perspectives on specific topics such as immigration.

These same technologies and techniques also shape trends in news production and consumption. As newspaper sales dwindle, outlets increasingly rely upon advertising revenue generated by clicks, making extensive use of social media platforms and user profiling. Public debate increasingly occurs via these social media platforms in which citizens, politicians, companies and bots communicate directly to each other without the traditional filters of journalistic standards and editorial oversight. It has been suggested that, where citizens increasingly rely on such platforms for news, they risk entering ‘filter bubbles’ in which they are exposed to a narrow range of perspectives oriented around their own profiles, shielded from contrasting views, in a broad trend that could also lead to more polarised societies. In this context, STOA launched two studies to explore the mechanisms by which these technologies and techniques may foster polarisation in Europe, and published an accompanying Options Brief.

One study, conducted by Richard Fletcher and Joy Jenkins of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford, considered the effects of technology on news production and consumption across Europe and their potential to lead to more polarised societies. One of its key messages is how little we understand about the mechanisms that link news production and social polarisation. The internet has created more consumer choice, to the point where most people select their own news sources based on their ideologies and preferences. Yet, the review found little evidence to support the ‘filter bubble’ thesis, or that exposure to populist material has a significant effect on citizens with mainstream views. However, there are key exceptions to these findings at the fringes, with evidence that people who already hold extreme ideological views or attitudes to populism tend to develop even stronger perspectives when exposed to news with which they either strongly agree or strongly disagree. The authors suggest that individuals’ basic interest in current affairs is a key factor as – in today ‘s high-choice media environment – some users may opt-out of news consumption entirely. Such news aversion could be a worrying trend if healthy democracies rely upon citizens understanding their political system.

The other study was conducted by Lisa Maria Neudert and Nahema Marchal of the University of Oxford, and focused on trends in political campaigning and communication strategies. It highlighted a trend towards more emotionally charged content – particularly negative material that provokes fear, hatred or disgust – in political communications. While such highly charged and targeted messages may be effective, they can also escalate mistrust and tensions between groups with different perspectives and, thus, foster social polarisation. The review also highlighted that some ‘clickbait’ based on political issues may be designed for purely financial purposes, but have the side-effect of increased polarisation. In other cases, polarisation has been the deliberate aim of manipulative political campaigns by hostile foreign and domestic political actors, making use of automated bots and ‘dark ads’ to amplify disagreement, provoke hostility between different groups, and undermine social cohesion.

Hasty policy action that attempts to control communications directly – for example by restricting some media content or political expression – could do more harm than good, and could even have ‘chilling effects’ on democracy. However, both studies present policy options that could help to foster healthier digital environments and mitigate trends towards social polarisation. These are combined and further developed in the STOA Options Brief, which includes options targeting news consumption, digital divides, political communications, news producers and governance institutions.

The authors of both studies presented their work during the STOA Panel meeting on 14 March 2019, which can be viewed here.

Written by Mihalis Kritikos,

Artificial intelligence (AI) poses new risks for human rights, as diverse as non-discrimination, privacy, security, freedom of expression, freedom of association, the right to work and access to public services. The current discussion focuses on whether and how the EU could develop a human rights-based approach to AI, given that there are no established methodologies to track effects/harm on human rights, to identify who is being excluded from AI systems and to assess the potential for discrimination in the use of machine learning.

Europe has the opportunity to shape the direction of AI at least from a socio-ethical perspective. The EU’s latest initiatives indicate the desire of its main institutional actors to react swiftly to these major human rights challenges and lead the development of a human-centric AI. More specifically, the European Commission communication on artificial intelligence for Europe (April 2018), launching the EU strategy on AI, made particular reference to the need to invest in people as a cornerstone of a human-centric, inclusive approach to AI, and reaffirmed its support for research into human-AI interaction and cooperation. Recently, the Commission’s High Level Expert Group on AI proposed the first draft AI ethics guidelines to the Commission, which address values protected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, such as privacy and personal data protection, human dignity, non-discrimination and consumer protection. The guidelines ask all stakeholders to evaluate possible effects of AI on human beings and the common good, and to ensure that AI is human-centric: AI should be developed, deployed and used with an ‘ethical purpose’, grounded in, and reflective of, fundamental rights, societal values and the ethical principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy of humans, and justice.

The recently adopted European Parliament resolution on a comprehensive European industrial policy on artificial intelligence and robotics makes explicit reference to the need for Europe to take the lead on the global stage by deploying only ethically embedded AI. It recommends that the Member States establish AI ethics monitoring and oversight bodies and encourage companies developing AI to set up ethics boards and draw up ethical guidelines for their AI developers, and requests an ethics-by-design approach that will facilitate the embedding of values such as transparency and explainability in the development of AI. The resolution points out that the guiding ethical framework should be based on the principles and values enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as well as on existing ethical practices and codes.

#AIHumanRightsSTOA

Are these initiatives sufficient in terms of safeguarding a human rights lens in the governance of AI? Do we need legally-binding norms in this field rather than soft-law instruments or even the development of new human rights? Should the EU legislators consider the need to integrate a requirement for systematic human rights impact assessments or even for developing new legal mechanisms for redress/remedy for human rights violations resulting from AI?

The Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA) and Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) are organising a workshop entitled ‘Is artificial intelligence a human rights issue?’ to discuss and evaluate the efficiency and adequacy of these EU-wide initiatives from a human rights’ perspective. This will be an opportunity to learn more about the effects of AI upon the protection of human rights, and to participate in a debate with key experts in the subject. The workshop will open with a welcome address from STOA Chair Eva Kaili (S&D, Greece), and a keynote speech by Professor Jason M. Schultz, from the NYU School of Law and former Senior Advisor on Innovation and Intellectual Property to the White House, and author (along with Aaron Perzanowski) of ‘The End of Ownership: Personal Property in the Digital Economy‘.

A welcome address from STOA Chair Eva Kaili (S&D, Greece) will be followed with a keynote speech by Professor Jason M. Schultz of the NYU School of Law, former Senior Advisor on Innovation and Intellectual Property to the White House, and author (along with Aaron Perzanowski) of a well-known book on The End of Ownership: Personal Property in the Digital Economy. This will be followed by three panel discussions, including presentations from a wide range of experts.

The first panel includes presentations from Ekkehard Ernst, Chief Macroeconomist, Research Department, ILO, Joanna Goodey, Head of Unit, European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and Dimitris Panopoulos, Suite 5. Panel 1 will be moderated by STOA Chair, Eva Kaili,

Joining Panel 2 will be Silkie Carlo, Chief Executive of Big Brother Watch, Lorena Jaume-Palasi, founder of the Ethical Tech Society and Lofred Madzou, Project Lead, AI & Machine Learning, World Economic Forum. This panel is moderated by Marietje Schaake (ALDE, the Netherlands).

Panel 3 includes Can Yeginsu, Barrister, 4 New Square Chambers, Professor Aimee van Wynsberghe, TU Delft-Member of the High-Level Expert Group on AI and Fanny Hidvegi, Access Now, Member of the High-Level Expert Group on AI, and is moderated by Michał BONI, (EPP, Poland), who will also moderate the Q&A discussion and debate and make the closing remarks.

Interested in joining the workshop? Watch the live webstream on the STOA event page.

Written by Wouter van Ballegooij and Elodie Thirion,

© ArTo / Fotolia

Ensuring that legally residing non-European Union nationals, referred to as third-country nationals (TCNs), are treated fairly and in a non-discriminatory manner is the goal of the EU’s efforts to build a comprehensive EU immigration policy. Accordingly, the EU has adopted secondary legislation covering different categories of TCNs and various stages of the migration process. The European Parliament has furthermore highlighted the need for a comprehensive labour migration policy for TCNs, and for better integration of TCN migrants to meet the European Union’s objectives for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, as well as to fill gaps identified in the EU labour market – which lead to loss of individual income and tax revenue.

Gaps and barriers

This cost of non-Europe report however identifies a number of gaps and barriers. These result from the lack of incorporation and implementation of international and EU human rights and labour standards, and the sectoral approach taken in the EU legal framework, which does not cover all TCNs and not in the same way, and in part leaves parallel national schemes in place. The report particularly highlights a number of obstacles TCNs face, including regarding equal treatment, entry and re-entry conditions, work authorisation, residence status, intra-EU mobility, social security coordination, family reunification and the recognition of qualifications.

Visit the European Parliament homepage on migration in Europe.

Impacts

This cost of non-Europe report draws a distinction between impacts at the individual level, due to an inadequate protection of fundamental rights and freedoms, and economic impacts upon Member States and the EU.

Beyond giving rise to discrimination, the gaps and barriers in EU action and cooperation in the area of legal migration result in income losses at individual level and lost tax revenue at societal (aggregate EU) level. The greatest impacts are due to unequal treatment with regard to access to employment, employment conditions including remuneration, and the barriers imposed on family migrants.

At societal level, these deficiencies undermine the EU’s ability to attract workers, and especially to address shortages in particular sectors or occupations in the EU labour market, as well as the effects of demographic change (an ageing population), and to boost innovation and growth. These deficiencies all negatively impact GDP growth. It is, however, very difficult to estimate a monetised benefit of the EU attracting further TCNs. This is due to the many factors to take into account, especially when making longer-term predictions.

Policy options

This report identifies seven policy options the EU could adopt to tackle the identified gaps and barriers:

• implement and enforce existing standards more efficiently;
• extend EU legislation gradually to include other sectors; or
• revisit the idea of adopting a binding immigration code covering all TCNs.

Depending on the policy option pursued, some €21.75 billion in individual and economic benefits could be achieved each year.

Read this study on ‘The Cost of Non-Europe in the area of legal migration‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Katarzyna Sochacka and Clare Ferguson,

© European Union 2019 – Source : EP

Highlights of the March I plenary session included debates on Brexit, preparation of the European Council meeting of 21-22 March 2019, and the latest debate on the Future of Europe, with Peter Pellegrini, Slovakia’s Prime Minister. Parliament also held debates on a proposed European human rights violations sanctions regime; the situation in Venezuela and Nicaragua; opening EU-US trade negotiations; climate change; gender balance in nominations to EU economic and monetary affairs bodies; and on the urgency to establish an EU blacklist of third countries with weak regimes on anti-money-laundering and countering terrorist financing. Finally, Parliament adopted first-reading positions on three further proposed funding programmes for the 2021-2027 period. A number of Brexit-preparedness measures were also adopted.

European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS)

Members debated and approved the interinstitutional agreement on upgrading the current European Criminal Records Information System, ensuring that the revised system upholds fundamental rights, that dual nationals will not be subject to the same fingerprinting requirements as third-country nationals, and that the need to include data on dual-national citizens in the system will be re-assessed in a future revision.

Cybersecurity

To increase resilience to cyber-attacks that could severely disrupt citizens’ lives, health and environment, it is proposed to give a stronger role to the current EU Agency for Network Information Security (ENISA), and to create a cybersecurity certification framework for IT systems, repealing the previous EU Cybersecurity Act. Members debated two reports: approving a trilogue agreement broadening ENISA’s role to consulting and advising governments, citizens and businesses on cybersecurity; and referring the establishment of a European Cybersecurity Industrial, Technology and Research Centre and a Network of National Coordination Centres, back to the Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) Committee.

Unfair trading practices in the food supply chain

Members debated and approved, by an overwhelming majority, the text of the new directive on unfair trading practices in the food supply chain, to combat the disadvantages small farmers experience when competing against large conglomerates. Parliament’s Agriculture & Rural Development Committee has succeeded in ensuring that the rules extend to all types of actors, include all agricultural products, and cover an extended list of prohibited unfair trading practices. The EU Council must formally approve the directive before it enters into force. EU Member States will then have 24 months to introduce the new rules into national legislation.

Revising the European citizens’ initiative

Although the European citizens’ initiative has enabled a million or more EU citizens to bring issues, such as ‘Right2Water’ and ‘Ban Glyphosate’, to the forefront of EU attention, Parliament has criticised the mechanism for its lack of effectiveness. Members debated and approved an interinstitutional agreement on revising the European citizens’ initiative to ensure that successful initiatives have greater political impact. The revision includes stronger support for organisers, simpler rules, better digital and physical facilities, longer deadlines for European Commission responses, and a new centralised collection system (by 2020).

European Accessibility Act

Seeking to ensure that the 70 million people in the EU who live with a disability are able to access both products (such as computers or phones) and services (such as transport or banking), Parliament debated, and adopted by a very strong majority, a text agreed in interinstitutional negotiations in view of the adoption of the long-awaited European Accessibility Act. The proposed directive aims to harmonise accessibility requirements and clarify the definition of the obligation of accessibility, as laid down in EU law.

Visa Information System

Parliament adopted new rules for a revised EU Visa Information System, which will tighten background checks on visa applicants, and improve information exchange between EU countries, where gaps lead to less security for EU citizens.

Minimum coverage for potential losses stemming from non-performing loans

Following the financial crisis, many citizens and businesses found it difficult to repay loans, leading to a large number of non-performing loans on EU bank balance sheets. Members debated and adopted a provisional agreement between Parliament and Council to amend the current Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR), obliging banks to carry minimum reserves to cover losses on such loans.

Safeguarding competition in air transport

Parliament debated safeguarding competition in air transport and approved the text agreed in interinstitutional negotiations. As the original legislation to protect the EU against possible unfair commercial practices in international aviation was ineffective (and never used), the revised regulation seeks to ensure both a high level of connectivity and fair competition with air carriers based outside the EU, allowing the Commission to act if competition is distorted by third-country operators.

Establishment of the European Monetary Fund

Many EU countries experienced financial difficulties during the 2008 financial crisis, leading to the creation of the European Stability Mechanism. Members debated and adopted an interim report, prepared jointly by Parliament’s Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) and Budgets (BUDG) Committees, on proposals to transform this intergovernmental mechanism into a European Monetary Fund. The changes would mean decisions on financial support would be taken by reinforced qualified majority (85 % of the votes), instead of unanimity. However, a decision by Council (where there is marked reluctance on the part of Member States), is still pending – the proposal itself being subject to the consent procedure (under which Parliament formally intervenes only at the end, to accept or reject the Council’s text).

Guidelines for the 2020 EU budget

Next year, 2020, is the last in the current multiannual financial framework, and Members debated and adopted a BUDG committee report on Section III of the proposed guidelines for the 2020 EU budget. It calls for an ambitious budgetary commitment prioritising innovation and research for economic growth, security, improving living and working conditions for citizens, and combating climate change.

Turkey’s 2018 country report

Parliament debated and adopted its position on the 2018 country report on Turkey, which addresses the country’s EU accession aspirations. Human rights issues in Turkey led the Committee on Foreign Affairs to recommend formal suspension of accession negotiations. Nevertheless, it also recommends continued dialogue, support for civil society and democratic reform, and recognises Turkey’s role in assisting refugees.

EU-Afghanistan Cooperation Agreement

Parliament gave its consent to the conclusion of the EU-Afghanistan Cooperation Agreement on Partnership and Development, which seeks to support the Afghan government in peace- and state-building, as well as development and trade, on fighting terrorism and on human rights.

Opening of trilogue negotiations

An Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) committee decision to enter into interinstitutional negotiations regarding type-approval requirements for motor vehicles and their trailers with regard to the safety and protection of their occupants and vulnerable users was confirmed.

Read this ‘At a glance’ note on ‘Plenary round-up – Strasbourg, March 2019‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© velbort / Fotolia

Ukraine will hold presidential elections on 31 March, five years after the Maidan protests resulted in the impeachment of pro-Kremlin President Viktor Yanukovich, setting the country on a course to depeen ties with the West. Russia reacted by launching a hybrid war against Ukraine, which resulted in the illegal annexation of the Crimean peninsula in March 2014, and in military aggression in eastern Ukraine. The outcome of the ballot is uncertain, but the new leader is expected to continue efforts of incumbent President Petro Poroshenko to deepen relations with the European Union and NATO,and continue the country’s reform process, including anti-corruption measures.

A record 44 candidates are contesting the election, with actor and political novice Volodymyr Zelenskiy holding the lead in opinion polls, followed by Poroshenko and former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko. If no candidate secures an absolute majority in the first round, the two top contenders will face each other in a run-off on 21 April.

This note offers links to recent commentaries, studies and reports from major international think tanks on the situation in Ukraine .

Ukraine: What comes after the presidential election?
Carnegie Europe, March 2019

Who is ready to lead Ukraine?
Atlantic Council, March 2019

Patriotism, pressure, populism: How Poroshenko can win
Carnegie Europe, March 2019

No good deed goes unpunished in Ukraine
Atlantic Council, March 2019

Der Donbas-Konflikt
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, February 2019

Kremlin-linked forces in Ukraine’s 2019 elections: On the brink of revenge?
Institut français des relations internationales, February 2019

Ukrainian society ahead of the elections
Carnegie Europe, February 2019

Ukraine’s leading presidential candidates (minus Poroshenko) promise to fight corruption
Atlantic Council, February 2019

Ukraine’s experiment with trust
European Council on Foreign Relations, February 2019

Russia looks to strike at Ukraine’s south again?
Atlantic Council, February 2019

The Ukraine model for Brexit: Is dissociation just like association?
Centre for European Reform, February 2019

L’industrie de défense Ukrainienne
Groupe de Recherche et d’Information sur la Paix et la Sécurité, February 2019

What will the 2019 Ukraine elections spell for the Donbas conflict?
Istituto Affari Internazionali, February 2019

And yet it moves: Post-Soviet frozen conflicts in 2019
Istituto Affari Internazionali, February 2019

The European deterrence initiative
Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment, January 2019

Elections in 2019: Risks of more interference
German Marshall Fund, January 2019

The Sea of Azov should not become a Russian lake
European Policy Centre, December 2018

No Russian let-up on Ukraine
Rand Europe, December 2018

Advancing natural gas reform in Ukraine
Council on Foreign Relations, December 2018

Crimea annexation 2.0
Carnegie Europe, November 2018

Ukraine’s new front is Europe’s big challenge
European Council on Foreign Relations, November 2018

Time for Trump to stand up to Putin after the Sea of Azov attack
German Marshall Fund, November 2018

Supporting political stability by strengthening local government
Danish Institute of International Studies, November 2018

What is happening in relations of Ukraine with its western neighbouring states?
International Centre for Policy Studies, October 2018

Occupied Crimea: Europe’s grey zone
European Policy Centre, October 2018

A Church conflict brews in Ukraine
Carnegie Europe, October 2018

‘Nobody wants us’: The alienated civilians of Eastern Ukraine
International Crisis Group, October 2018

The attitude of Ukrainians toward social democracy
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, October 2018

Migration from Ukraine to Poland: The trend stabilises
Centre for Eastern Studies, October 2018

Russia vs. Ukraine: More of the same?
Brookings Institution, October 2018

The struggle for good governance in Eastern Europe
Centre for European Policy Studies, September 2018

Ukraine’s incomplete transformation
Carnegie Europe, September 2018

Deepening EU-Ukrainian relations: What, why and how?
Centre for European Policy Studies, September 2018

How Eastern Ukraine is adapting and surviving: The case of Kharkiv
Carnegie Europe, September 2018

Ukraine and its neighbors: Analysis of regional trends
International Centre for Policy Studies, September 2018

Rebuilding Ukraine: An assessment of EU assistance
Chatham House, August 2018

How Ukraine’s government has struggled to adapt to Russia’s digital onslaught
Council on Foreign Relations, August 2018

Ukraine’s Helsinki hangover
German Marshall Fund, July 2018

Ukraine: The struggle for reforms continues
Bruegel, July 2018

Integrity on trial: Judicial reform in Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova
Centre for European Policy Studies, June 2018

Ukrainian elections: Poroshenko and proliferating populists
European Council on Foreign Relations, May 2018

Poroshenko stands alone: Ukraine politics in a pre-election year
Centre for Eastern Studies, May 2018

A route to national resilience: Building whole-of-society security in Ukraine
International Centre for Defence and Security, April 2018

The EU twinning instrument in Ukraine: Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats
Centre for European Policy Studies, April 2018

Russian social media influence: Understanding Russian propaganda in Eastern Europe
Rand Europe, April 2018

Read this briefing note on ‘Presidential elections in Ukraine‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Lieve Van WOENSEL with Richelle BOONE.

pcfruit / Fotolia

There is a problem: we need to feed 11 billion people by the end of the century, but the growth of agriculture is limited by planetary sustainability boundaries. Since the increase of land use is one of the key drivers for the loss of biodiversity, increasing crop yield could be a solution for meeting the demand. Good crop protection measures are vital for this purpose, and especially the use of plant protection products (PPPs) – insecticides, herbicides and fungicides – has proven to be very helpful in increasing efficiency. However, a strong public concern about PPPs is that they might have a negative impact on health and the environment. Up to now, European legislation has been characterised by an overall wish to reduce the use of PPPs. The question is whether that can be done while at the same time maintaining or increasing crop yield? Do scientists share this public concern? And are there any reliable alternatives to PPPs?

The STOA workshop ‘Farming without agro-chemicals’, which took place on 6 March 2019, gave participants an opportunity to gain a better understanding of the impact of PPPs on food production, and the perspectives of all the different stakeholders in the discussion on PPPs were explored. The event resulted from a proposal submitted to STOA by Mairead McGuinness, first Vice-President of the European Parliament (EPP, Ireland) and a member of the EP Special Committee on pesticides. Mairead McGuinness had earlier requested a STOA study on precision farming, which was published in 2016. That study identified opportunities and concerns regarding precision agriculture in the EU, including for instance the possibility for precision farming to contribute to food security and sustainability.

Another member of the EP Special Committee on pesticides, Anthea McIntyre (ERC, UK), chaired the meeting. In her opening address, she stressed the need for an evidence-based approach in the debates on PPPs, stating that ‘science should come first, last and always in deciding the safety and effectiveness of PPPs’. Anthea McIntyre also underlined that controversy should never be a reason for STOA to shy away from preparing scientific advice on a certain topic. Three professors from the Biosystems Department of the University of Leuven prepared a scientific assessment at STOA’s request, as a background document to spark and support discussion. The gathered MEPs, scientists, representatives of a wide range of organisations, students and interested public found plenty of opportunity to engage in this discussion after six panellists representing different perspectives presented their views.

First, the three professors from the University of Leuven presented their background document. Wannes Keulemans, Head of the Laboratory of Fruit Breeding and Biotechnology of the department, explained that it would be very difficult to produce enough food for 11 billion people without using PPPs. Reductions in the use of PPPs are, however, possible in those cases in which the amount used is high. It should be clear however that such reductions do not necessarily benefit biodiversity: as Professor Keulemans pointed out, many scientific studies do not report a direct and clear relation between biodiversity and PPPs. Other factors, such as land use change, are much more important drivers for biodiversity loss. He therefore stressed that possible environmental benefits of alternative agricultural systems are cancelled out if these systems require significantly more land – because of lower yield – in order to meet the increasing food demand.

Dany Bylemans, who, in addition to working at the University of Leuven, is also the Director of a research centre for fruit cultivation (pcfruit), continued the presentation by stating that all PPPs are by definition bad for human health and the environment. That is, the substances were created to kill. However, chemical PPPs are not by definition more toxic than natural PPPs (‘bio-pesticides’) and, as long as they are used in the correct way, the health risks PPPs create are comparable or even lower than the risks we are willing to take in everyday life. Consumer perception and scientific opinion about PPPs thus differ widely, he argued. Whereas consumers are mostly worried about food additives and PPPs, scientists are more concerned about microbial contamination and nutritional imbalance. Professor Bylemans alerted the audience to the issue that banning PPPs might have an undesirable consequence in this last respect: food perceived as healthy could become too expensive for lower-income classes, enhancing for instance the risk of obesity. In his view, improved risk communication should equip consumers with a more balanced image of PPPs, he added.

To conclude the presentation of the background document, the leader of the ‘Plant Health and Protection’ group at the University of Leuven, Barbara De Coninck, focused on three promising trends for reducing the use of PPPs. The first is to replace chemical PPPs with biological ones, such as natural enemies of the target organisms. Another option would be to opt for resistant cultivars, for instance created by the genome editing technique CRISPR-CAS. Smart farming techniques, such as remote sensing by drones and precision spraying, complete the list. All these trends could be easily incorporated in the integrated pest management (IPM) scheme, which has been compulsory in the EU since 2014. IPM aims to lower risks for human health and the environment through precautionary measures and by using smart combinations of different farming techniques, including the use of natural PPPs.

After introducing the background document, three distinctive stakeholder perspectives on PPPs were explored. As a leader of a Europe-wide agricultural impact assessment programme for the European Crop Protection Association (ECPA), Anne van Drunen Littel illustrated the conventional agricultural viewpoint. She presented the results of an ECPA study that mapped the financial consequences for EU farmers when their toolbox will no longer contain certain PPPs. This study is complementary to environmental and health impact assessments. The study’s conclusion was that, on average, farmers would experience lower yields and higher production costs, underlining the need for good regulation, especially for those farmers that already struggle to make ends meet today.

Isabella Lang, Policy Analyst at the European umbrella organisation for organic food and farming, IFOAM EU, informed the audience about the position of organic farmers. Organic farming differs from conventional farming by allowing only the use of substances that are already naturally occurring in the specific biosystem. She highlighted that organic farming is not just about replacing inputs, but more about developing strategies. The practice is not the opposite of modern technology, Lang stated; instead, it combines tradition, innovation and science to realise its principles. Several other panellists pointed out that organic farming and IPM are actually quite similar in the techniques and strategies they apply to protect health and the environment. During her presentation, Isabella Lang outlined a couple of important and fundamental issues to consider during debate: Should agricultural systems be judged only on yield, or should we also consider inputs such as fertilisers and fossil energy? Could the increasing demand for food justify further intensification of agriculture, or should we focus more on solving problems such as access to food and food waste? And is organic food too expensive, or is conventional food in fact too cheap?

Challenging the attendees to contrast their convictions as citizens with their consumer desires, Marleen Onwezen, a Social Psychologist working at Wageningen Economic Research, delved into the topic of consumer perceptions. She tried in particular to explain why consumers do not necessarily choose products according to the ideals and principles they value as citizens. Many different factors go into decision-making, including irrational ones. Food innovations are, for instance, not always accepted by consumers, not even if they have proven to be beneficial and are considered safe by many scientists. However, Marleen Onwezen emphasised that, although consumers might be irrational in their choices, their behaviour is predictable. Good communication about food innovation and consulting consumers at the earliest stages in the development of new products or techniques could therefore enhance trust in new foods.

During the discussion following the panellists’ talks, workshop participants made many interesting contributions. Mairead McGuinness for instance expressed her concern for conventional farmers faced with uncertainty about their future, now that they see some of their tools disappearing. She wondered about the options for conventional farmers and about how the farmers’ perspective should be incorporated in the efforts towards solving sustainability challenges. Many participants shared this concern, and indicated that they take the interests of both conventional and organic farmers very seriously. In particular, the objective of spreading innovations to as many farmers and as quickly as possible was deemed important. This ties-in with another insight voiced by many attendees: organic and conventional agricultural systems should not be seen as being in competition. As Julie Girling (EPP, UK) stated: ‘I see them as an issue of consumer choice and as an issue of complementarity’. Furthermore, some participants urged that the scope of the discussion should be extended beyond PPPs.

In a wide-ranging and open discussion, panellists and members of the audience brought up a great variety of factors, issues and problems that should be taken into account in order to reach the connected aims of sufficient food production and sustainable agriculture development. Maria Heubuch (Greens/EFA, DE) brought up for instance the problem of food waste. Other factors like the use of animal products, food access, climate change and insect decline were also considered relevant to the debate, to name just a few examples. Keeping an eye on the role of agriculture in the complete food chain and the overall ecosystem was understood to be crucial in working towards sustainability.

To summarise, the overall conclusion of this fruitful exchange of thoughts was that we should stop thinking of conventional and organic agricultural practices as diametrically opposed, and start finding common ground, exchanging ideas, thinking of ways to communicate techniques to farmers, and working together towards a more sustainable agricultural system.

This workshop will be followed by a Scientific Foresight study on sustainable agriculture as decided by the STOA Panel in line with Mairead McGuinness’s initial proposal. This means that, in addition to a scientific analysis, societal concerns will also be investigated and will be taken into account in the formulation of options for courses of action at the EU policy level. As such, the study will go beyond the scope of the workshop summarised in this blog post. While relying on a well-balanced understanding of the current scientific consensus on the relevant topics, STOA, in its workshops and studies, is well aware of the fact that there exists, or may appear in the future, studies presenting a different view to the scientific findings reported. STOA fully respects these studies, and considers it of the utmost importance to welcome them with an open mind. Policy decisions take account of both scientific evidence and societal considerations, including the values, interests and concerns present in society. STOA therefore values all opinions on the use of PPPs and encourages a wide debate on the issue, hopefully supported and sharpened by the scientific evidence available for all to profit from.

Written Stefano Spinaci (1st edition),

© pogonici / Fotolia

On 24 May 2018, the Commission published three proposals for regulations reflecting the EU’s efforts to connect finance with its own sustainable development agenda. The proposals include measures to: create an EU sustainable finance taxonomy; make disclosures relating to sustainable investments and sustainability risks clearer; and establish low-carbon benchmarks. In particular, the proposal for a regulation on disclosures aims to integrate environmental, social and governance considerations into the decision-making process of investors and asset managers. It also aims to increase the transparency duties of financial intermediaries towards end-investors, with regard to sustainability risks and sustainable investment targets. This should reduce investors’ search costs for sustainable investments and enable easier comparison between sustainable financial products in the EU. In the Parliament, the ECON committee adopted its report on the proposed regulation in November 2018. On 7 March 2019, the Romanian EU Council Presidency and the Parliament reached a preliminary agreement on the proposal in trilogue discussions, and that agreement now needs to be confirmed by Parliament, with the plenary vote expected in April.

Versions

• March 2019: ‘Sustainable finance and disclosures: Bringing clarity to investors‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on disclosures relating to sustainable investments and sustainability risks and amending Directive (EU) 2016/2341 Committee responsible: Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) COM(2018) 354 of 24.5.2018 Rapporteur: Paul Tang (S&D, the Netherlands) 2018/0179(COD) Shadow rapporteurs: Sirpa Pietikäinen (EPP, Finland)
Syed Kamall (ECR, United Kingdom)
Lieve Wierinck (ALDE, Belgium)
Matt Carthy (GUE/NGL, Ireland)
Molly Scott Cato (Greens/EFA, United Kingdom) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Confirmation of trilogue agreement in ECON
First-reading vote in plenary

Written by Lieve Van Woensel with Nissy Nevil.

© Elnur / Shutterstock.com

Recent reports of celebrity singer, Taylor Swift, deploying facial recognition technology to spot stalkers at her concerts raised many eyebrows. What started out as a tool to unlock your smartphone or tag photos for you on social media is surreptitiously becoming a means of monitoring people in their daily lives without their consent. What impact and implications are facial recognition technology applications likely to have, and what can be done to ensure the fair engagement of this technology with its users and the public at large?

These days you can take out cash, check in at airports and pay bills just using your face. This is possible thanks to facial recognition (FR) technology, the latest ground-breaking development in data-driven technology. FR technology compares the detected face in a digital image or a video frame with large databases in order to identify or authenticate a person. Not only can this biometric technology be used to identify you, it can also determine your age, gender and sexual orientation. Even more significantly, perhaps, it might soon be used to detect what you are thinking and track your every move, without your consent.

FR technology is linked to emotion recognition, also referred to as affect recognition, which it is claimed can be used to identify moods, emotions and personality, etc. This information could then be used, for instance, to monitor mental health, detect fraudulent insurance claims, influence people’s shopping experiences through personalised advertising, or to spot potential shoplifters. Through emotion recognition, technology based on images or videos of faces also offers the potential to monitor students’ classroom participation, or help employers recruit workers. It is therefore not surprising that demand for FR-enabled applications and the value they offer is booming, leading to a rapid expansion of related industries.

Possible impacts and developments

FR technology is one of the main building blocks of smart environments, and could underpin the smart cities of the future. With FR technology embedded, a smart environment can identify a user, interpret his or her actions or facial expressions and then interact through personalised messages based on the moods and emotions interpreted. The power of FR lies in its potential to be built into various smart environments with a view to providing personalised services.

Facial recognition applications are being piloted by law enforcement authorities at airports and borders to help them address terrorist threats, cross-border crime, irregular migration and child trafficking. Applications are also being pilot tested for use in targeted and mass surveillance and tracking in streets, at football matches and music festivals, at carnivals and at transport hubs. Police have already used this technology to spot people on mental health watch lists, identify protesters at arms fairs and detect stalkers.

FR-enabled applications already facilitate faster entry at events for people who have opted in, as well as payment at restaurants, or for insurance or other purchases. FR is opening up new opportunities for advertisers, retailers and marketers to personalise marketing. Data about customers’ movements and behaviour, combined with mood analysis using emotion recognition, may soon be used by retailers to present customers with customised advertisements. Emotion recognition may also one day be used by recruiters when hiring, or by employers to monitor the moods of employees and adapt the working environment empathetically, or even to track employees’ work engagement patterns.

In healthcare, emotion recognition technology could eventually be used in the diagnosis and treatment of autism, in suicide prevention and in the early detection of Parkinson’s disease. In medical emergencies, mobile applications enabled by FR technology could be used to identify a patient who is unconscious and unable to communicate relevant medical conditions, and to identify features such as age or gender, check if the patient’s medical history already exists in the database, and retrieve the associated medical information. FR might also be used in the future to help the elderly recognise caregivers and visitors, while emotion recognition could be used to detect signs of sadness or depression. All these applications still need the backing of robust scientific evidence before they can be deployed.

While there are no doubt many convenient, new applications, such as face-enabled log-in systems, that are not in themselves problematic, more powerful applications are looming on the horizon and their potential benefits and risks deserve a much closer look. While the use of FR technology for surveillance and law enforcement improves security, the tracking and surveillance of individuals without consent by private parties raises privacy and ethical concerns over the ownership and storage, and use of the images, and could also result in fear and distress. The ’10‑year challenge’ that recently went viral on a number of social media platforms raised the question as to whether the data uploaded were being used to train facial recognition algorithms on age progression and recognition. Sometimes even when consent is given, the purpose for using the technology is not very clear. Applying emotion recognition to hiring and education, etc. could pose high risks, at both individual and societal level. What if algorithms that are meant to help find the candidate best suited to the job actually just perpetuate stereotypes and render a poor service? How can the fair and balanced use of technology be ensured in such cases?

Reports of errors or failures in police use of this technology to identify people shed doubt on the efficacy and purpose of the technology. Reports also show that FR technologies are prone to error when used for datasets of women with dark skin. This kind of bias in algorithms can lead to biased and inaccurate outcomes, with a varying impact on diverse populations and potential implications in the world of work. What can be done to make sure this technology is used fairly? There is a need for policies and regulations to secure the safe and responsible integration of FR technologies and to address the risks posed by blind spots and error. Technology has been shown to be able to detect sexual orientation with higher accuracy than can humans; but research of this kind raises obvious concerns regarding the purposes for which it could be used.

What if some users do not want to give their details or would rather remain anonymous? Can people who do not want their movements tracked for commercial purposes opt out? Could the names of all the entities that collect behavioural biometrics be listed and made publicly available?

Anticipatory policy-making

It is clear that the stakes for FR technology are high in criminal justice, law enforcement, employment, housing, recruitment, health and education. FR is expected to be a booming market in the years to come. An in-depth examination of its potential benefits and risks is essential in order to understand the impact on civil rights and liberties. New regulations must ensure that the algorithms deployed are fair, unbiased and balanced, and the purposes for which they are used is made clear rather than being kept secret. It is also crucial that stakeholders employing FR be held accountable for they ways they collect, use and store data.

Article 6 and Article 9 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) refer to the consent that an individual must provide before his or her personal data (including biometric data) can be processed for a specific purpose. That consent is one of a number of conditions that must be met if the processing of an individual’s data is to be considered legal. Article 32 provides for the protection and error-proof recovery of personal data in the event of a physical or technical incident. Are the provisions of the GDPR enough to address the concerns raised by FR technology?

The first Draft Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI were recently issued by the European Commission’s High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence. They cover issues such as fairness, safety, transparency, the future of work, democracy and, more broadly, the impact on the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, including privacy and personal data protection, dignity, consumer protection and non-discrimination. EU law-makers, together with all FR technology stakeholders will need to interact, engage and play an active role to help the Commission to formulate regulations that secure the fair use of this technology.

Read this complete ‘at a glance’ note on ‘What if your emotions were tracked to spy on you?‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.