European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

Written by François Théron (1st edition),

© bruiser / Fotolia

Since 2008, in line with its action plan to enhance the security of explosives, the European Union has considered regulating chemicals that could be used to produce homemade explosives to be a priority. A first legislative act in this regard – Regulation (EU) No 98/2013 on the marketing and use of explosives precursors – was adopted in 2013.

The 2015 Paris and 2016 Brussels terrorist attacks and their operating modes, which were based on the use of homemade explosives, led to an assessment of the efficiency of the 2013 regulation. To take into account existing challenges, and increase stakeholders’ ability to implement and enforce restrictions and controls under the regulation, the European Commission launched its revision in February 2017. On 17 April 2018, it adopted a proposal for a new regulation on explosives precursors.

Following trilogue negotiations, an agreement between the European Parliament and the Council was reached on 5 February 2019. The Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE), approved the agreed text on 19 February 2019. The vote in plenary is due to take place in April 2019.

Versions

• March 2019: ‘Explosives precursors: Fighting the misuse of chemicals by terrorists‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the marketing and use of explosives precursors, amending Annex XVII to Regulation No 1907/2006 and repealing Regulation(EU) No 98/2013 on the marketing and use of explosives precursors Committee responsible: Civil liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) COM(2018) 209 of 17.4.2018 Rapporteur: Andrejs Mamikins (S&D, Latvia) 2018/0103(COD) Shadow rapporteurs: Tomáš Zdechovský (EPP, Czech Republic)
Helga Stevens (ECR, Belgium)
Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE, France)
Marina Albiol Guzmán (GUE/NGL, Spain)
Bodil Valero (Greens/EFA, Sweden) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: First-reading vote in plenary

Visit the European Parliament homepage on the fight against terrorism.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/security/20180703STO07127/the-eu-s-fight-against-terrorism

Written by Katrien Luyten,

Entering the EU as a non-European is not too difficult for people from stable countries. Those planning to visit one or more EU Member States can get in as a tourist, with or without a visa. If the intention is to live and work for a longer period, they can use the many possibilities offered by labour migration. Regular mobility schemes also include provisions for other categories such as students, researchers, au pairs and voluntary workers. People wishing to join a family member who is already residing legally in the EU might even be eligible for family reunification. However, for people coming from countries at war or where democracy is in serious peril, or who happen to live in a non-EU country after fleeing their own country, or who are simply looking for a better life, the options are more limited. Moreover, even when options exist, gaining access to them is not always possible for people who find themselves in precarious, dangerous or even life-threatening situations.

In 2015, a record number of people tried to reach Europe by all means, often risking their lives along their journeys. Although the number of irregular arrivals in the EU is back to pre-crisis levels, immigration remains one of the key concerns of European citizens and is expected to remain a challenge for years to come.

Visit the European Parliament homepage on migration in Europe.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/priorities/refugees/20170629STO78632/migration-in-europe

In order to address this challenge, the EU has embarked on a process of reform aimed at rebuilding its common asylum policies on fairer and more solid ground, strengthening its external borders by reinforcing the links between border controls and security, and renewing cooperation with third countries on migration issues. A forward-looking and comprehensive European immigration policy, based on solidarity and respect for European values, requires a balanced approach to dealing with both irregular and legal migration. The EU is committed to help create more, safe and controlled channels to migration both to help people in need of protection and to address labour market needs and skills shortages adequately.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Legal migration to the EU‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Click to view slideshow.

Written by Carla Stamegna (1st edition),

© Stephen Orsillo / Fotolia

The recessions resulting from the financial crisis that broke out at the end of the last decade have caused economic difficulties for more and more EU companies and citizens in recent years, leaving them unable to repay their loans. As a result many EU banks have accumulated high volumes of non-performing loans (NPLs) on their balance-sheets. Although it has almost halved since December 2014, the ratio between NPLs and total loans extended by EU banks (the NPL ratio) remains historically high when measured against the ratios of other advanced economies. NPLs represent a risk to banks’ balance sheets inasmuch as future losses they might generate are not sufficiently covered by appropriate reserves. To tackle this issue, in March 2018 the Commission adopted a comprehensive package of measures, including a proposal for a regulation amending the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) to introduce common minimum loss coverage levels (a ‘statutory backstop’) for newly originated loans that become non-performing.

Versions

• March 2019: ‘Minimum loss coverage for non-performing loans‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on amending Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 as regards minimum loss coverage for nonperforming exposures Committee responsible: Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) COM(2018) 134 of 14.3.2018 Co-rapporteurs: Esther de Lange (EPP, Netherlands)
Roberto Gualtieri (S&D, Italy) 2018/0060(COD) Shadow rapporteurs: Bernd Lucke (ECR, Germany)
Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE, Spain)
Matt Carthy (GUE/NGL, Ireland)
Sven Giegold (Greens/EFA, Germany)
Marco Zanni (ENF, Italy) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Vote in plenary

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 babies.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

© famveldman / Fotolia

Your baby is special. The European Union helps babies’ parents and guardians through measures aimed at children in general that always take the babies’ best interests as a primary consideration.

The EU supports babies’ right to maintain a personal relationship and direct contact with both parents, unless that is contrary to their interests. Their mothers have a right to at least 14 weeks of maternity leave, and either of their parents have a right to take at least four months of parental leave to care for them.

The EU protects also babies’ health. Their food has to be safe and meet high standards, such as no detectable presence of pesticide residues. Their toys have to respect high safety requirements, especially regarding the use of chemicals. Their mothers are not allowed to work at night or in conditions that would jeopardise their babies’ health while pregnant, breastfeeding, or having just given birth.

Furthermore, the EU offers policy and financial support to improve early childhood education and care. It helps to increase the quantity and quality of childcare facilities and offers support for staff development. The EU also finances research on how to create services that best meet babies’ needs.

Finally, babies benefit from EU law and funding that addresses different forms of violence (e.g. sexual abuse and exploitation, human trafficking). And if a baby should go missing, the EU has launched a hotline number (116000).

Further information

• EPRS publication on maternity, paternity and parental leave in the EU, 2017, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_BRI(2017)599323
• Handbook on European law relating to the rights of the child, http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2015/handbook-european-law-child-rights
• European Commission website on the rights of the child, https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/justice-and-fundamental-rights/rights-child_en

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

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

© AlenKadr / Fotolia

The identity and reputation of EU wine regions are protected through the EU’s geographical indications (GI), which are recorded in something called the E-Bacchus register. GIs are intended to protect consumers from misleading marketing. They also provide information to consumers on the origin of the wine and grape varieties used. In addition, the European Commission keeps a list of wine grape varieties that countries have agreed may be grown on their soil. This list runs into the thousands and reflects the huge diversity of EU wine regions.

On average, EU consumers account for over half of all wine consumption worldwide. Consumers have become increasingly health-conscious, prompting demand for more detailed information on wine labels. EU law in this area is designed to ensure that consumers are properly informed about what they eat and drink. However, drinks with an alcohol content above 1.2 % are exempt from rules on ingredients listing, for example, or on providing information on sugar levels and calories.

In response to this exemption, and to the fact that some EU countries have additional labelling requirements for alcoholic drinks, the European Parliament adopted a resolution in 2015 calling on the European Commission to propose EU rules for the indication of the calorie content of alcoholic beverages. In March 2017, the Commission told EU wine producers that they had one year to come up with a self-regulatory scheme aimed at providing consumers with information about the ingredients present in alcoholic drinks and their nutritional value.

Further information

• European Commission press release, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-551_en.htm
• EU Regulation on food labelling, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32011R1169&from=EN
• European Commission’s Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development website, http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/markets/wine/e-bacchus/
• European Commission report on mandatory labelling of ingredients and nutrition declaration of alcoholic beverages, https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/safety/docs/fs_labelling-nutrition_legis_alcohol-report_en.pdf

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 bank account holders.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

© MichaelJBerlin/ Fotolia

Bank accounts are an essential part of everyday life, allowing us to manage our money, shop online, and pay bills.

Despite continuous efforts to integrate financial services further, European citizens often still find it difficult to open an account in another EU country or to change banks. In addition, bank fees are sometimes high and not particularly transparent.

Thanks to the Directive on Payment Accounts, anyone residing legally in the European Union has the right to open a payment account with basic features (cash withdrawals and payment transactions) in any EU country. In addition, the Payment Services Directive introduced a set of rules to improve the level of transparency for fees for payment services. The Directive on Payment Accounts builds on this and provides for several tools (such as independent websites that compare the payment account fees charged by different banks) to make fees clearer to us, the consumers, and to allow us to make more informed choices.

Lastly, the Directive on Payment Accounts addresses the issue of payment account switching: until recently, bank customers wishing to change bank payment accounts could face delays or other problems when trying to transfer recurring payments – such as standing orders – from one account to another. To remedy this, the directive establishes a quick procedure for those who want to switch their account from one bank to another in the same EU country and provides that, in cases of account-switching between two EU countries, the bank hosting the account to be closed must assist in the process.

Further information

• Payment accounts – Directive 2014/92/EU, https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/payment-accounts-directive-2014-92-eu_en
• Payment services – Directive 2015/2366/EU, https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/payment-services-psd-2-directive-eu-2015-2366_en
• Opening/switching bank accounts and information on fees, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/LSU/?uri=CELEX:32014L0092

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 air travellers to and from peripheral and under-served regions.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

© manifeesto / Fotolia

Do you live in a peripheral or under-served region? If so, the EU is working to ensure that regions like yours are linked up to the air travel network.

Europeans have access to many more destinations than they used to thanks to the liberalisation of aviation in the EU in the 1990s (there are almost eight times as many routes now as there were in 1992). However, this may not ring true for you. In some remote regions and islands there is either insufficient demand or simply not enough flights, if any at all, to serve the needs of local communities.

To guarantee the economic and social development of these regions, the EU authorises exceptions to free market principles in aviation. Under certain conditions, EU law allows EU countries to impose public service obligations (PSO) in order to maintain scheduled air services on routes that are vital for peripheral or under-served regions. The operator’s choices have to be transparent and non-discriminatory, and information must be publicly available (on an EU website).

In 2017, there were 179 PSO-type routes in 13 European countries (Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom). Most of them were domestic routes while only seven linked airports in two different countries. France has the largest number of this kind of route (40) with some 5.7 million passengers travelling on these routes every year. In Ireland, meanwhile, PSOs represent a substantial share of domestic traffic (70 %).

Further information

• European Commission’s Directorate General for Mobility and Transport,
  EU Aviation: 25 years of reaching new heights – European Commission
• European Commission’s Directorate General for Mobility and Transport,
  https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/internal-market/pso_en
• European Commission’s Directorate General for Mobility and Transport,
  https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/aviation-strategy_en

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© michal812 / Fotolia

The European Union held its first ever summit with the Arab League in February, highlighting the growing importance of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) in tackling problems such as security, terrorism, migration and energy supply. At their meeting in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, more than 40 leaders from the two blocs discussed issues ranging from ways to fight poverty and reducing irregular migration to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, instability in Libya and wars in Syria and Yemen. The summit’s declaration called for stronger economic and political cooperation as well as efforts to support the multilateral, rules-based international order.

This note offers links to recent commentaries and reports by major international think tanks on the general problems found within the region and some specific countries. More reports on the region can be found in a previous edition of ‘What Think Tanks are Thinking’ published in October 2017. The issue of Iran will be discussed in one of the forthcoming issues of the series.

Morocco-Saudi relations: Trouble amongst royals?
Brookings Institution, March 2019

The EU-Arab Summit: A chance to reset relations with the Arab world?
Centre for European Policy Studies, February 2019

General Haftar’s Offensive in the Fezzan Region and the Italian-French competition
Karim Atlantic Council, February 2019

Libya’s Conflicts Enter a Dangerous New Phase
Stiftung Wissenshaft Und Politik, February 2019

Tunisia in 2019: A pivotal year?
International Crisis Group, February 2019

Contested multilateralism: The United Nations and the Middle East
Menara, Instituto Affari Internazionali, February 2019

Interregnum: The Regional order in the Middle East and North Africa after 2011
Menara, Instituto Affari Internazionali, February 2019

Four game changers in Europe’s south
Carnegie Europe, February 2019

The Middle East’s shifting energy politics
Chatham House, February 2019

La Chine et l’Égypte après le ‘Printemps arabe’: Combler le vide ?
Groupe de Recherche et d’Information sur la Paix et la Sécurité, February 2019

Restoration, transformation and adaptation: Authoritarianism after 2011 in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran
Menara, Instituto Affari Internazionali, January 2019

The water-energy-food security nexus in the Western Mediterranean
IEMed, January 2019

A year after the defeat of ISIS in Iraq, what has changed?
Middle East Institute, January 2019

Refugee movements in the Middle East: Old crises, new ideas
Instituto Affari Internazionali, January 2019

Restoration, transformation and adaptation: Authoritarianism after 2011 in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran
Danish Institute of International Studies, January 2019

Pushing the boundaries: How to create more effective migration cooperation across the Mediterranean
European Council on Foreign Relations, January 2019

Saudi Arabia as a peace peddler? The limits of Riyadh’s influence over Israeli–Palestinian diplomacy
Instituto Affari Internazionali, January 2019

The lack of disarmament in the Middle East: A thorn in the side of the NPT
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, January 2019

The Levant: Search for a regional order
Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, January 2019

Saudi Arabia, armaments and conflict in the Middle East
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, December 2018

The EU Global Strategy and the MENA Region: In search of resilience
Instituto Affari Internazionali, December 2018

Europe and Iran: The Economic and Commercial Dimensions of a Strained Relationship
Istituto Affari Internazionali, December 2018

Economic policy challenges in Southern and Eastern Mediterranean
Bruegel, December 2018

Short term fixes for long-lasting troubles: Why IMF reforms won’t solve Egypt’s (political) economic problems
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, December 2018

The quest for a regional order in the Middle East
Egmont, December 2018

The effect of Western engagement on Libyan peace process
Institute for Foreign Affairs and Trade, December 2018

Weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East and North Africa
Instituto Affari Internazionali, November 2018

Youth unemployment: Common problem, different solutions?
Bruegel, November 2018

Armed conflicts and the erosion of the state: The cases of Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Syria
Instituto Affari Internazionali, November 2018

Testing the water: How water scarcity could destabilise the Middle East and North Africa
European Council on Foreign Relations, November 2018

As the situation in Gaza worsens, it’s time for the EU to step in: Trump has proven the US can’t help any more
Centre for European Reform, November 2018

Six days, fifty years: The June 1967 war and its aftermath
Institute for National Security Studies, November 2018

How to halt Yemen’s slide into famine
International Crisis Group, November 2018

Building trust: The challenge of peace and stability in the Mediterranean
Istituto per gli Studi di Politica Internazionale, November 2018

Regional geopolitical rivalries in the Middle East: Implications for Europe
Instituto Affari Internazionali, October 2018

Political (dis)order and coercive organisations in the Levant
Clingendael, October 2018

The impact of global decarbonisation policies and technological improvements on oil and gas producing countries in the Middle East and North Africa
Bruegel, October 2018

After Khashoggi disappearance, business sours on Mohammed bin Salman
Chatham House, October 2018

The arc of crisis in the MENA region: Fragmentation, decentralization, and Islamist opposition
Istituto per gli Studi di Politica Internazionale, October 2018

What Egypt’s El-Sisi and the EU have in common when it comes to women’s rights
Centre for European Policy Studies, October 2018

Democratisation after the Arab Spring: how can the EU effectively support Tunisia and Egypt?
Österreichische Gesellschaft für Europapolitik, September 2018

Optimising the impact of European cultural, science and innovation diplomacy in Egypt and Tunisia
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, September 2018

Order from chaos: Stabilising Libya the local way
European Council on Foreign Relations, July 2018

Lebanon-EU relations and ways forward: Qualitative research findings with key stakeholders in Lebanon
Istituto Affari Internazionali, June 2018

Actors in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Interests, narratives and the reciprocal effects of the occupation
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, June 2018

The Gulf monarchies’ armed forces at the crossroads
Institut français des relations internationales, May 2018

Egypt after the presidential election
Centre for European Policy Studies, May 2018

Saudi Arabia: Back to Baghdad
International Crisis Group, May 2018

Politics of recognition and denial: Minorities in the MENA region
European Institute of the Mediterranean, May 2018

The Middle East’s new battle lines
European Council on Foreign Relations, May 2018

The EU-Tunisia privileged partnership. What next?
European Institute of the Mediterranean, May 2018

Alone in the desert? How France can lead Europe in the Middle East
European Council on Foreign Relations, April 2018

Iran’s priorities in a turbulent Middle East
International Crisis Group, April 2018

Libya: moving beyond the transitional mood
Barcelona Centre for International Affairs, April 2018

How to combat the causes of refugee flows: The EU-Jordan compact in practice
Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, April 2018

Crisis and Breakdown: How Can the EU Foster Resilience in the Middle East and North Africa?
Istituto Affari Internazionali, January 17, 2018

Read this briefing on ‘The EU and Middle East and North Africa‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Clare Ferguson,

© European Parliament / P.Naj-Oleari

The agenda for the first plenary session in March features, for this month’s debate on the Future of Europe, the attendance on Tuesday morning of Peter Pellegrini, Prime Minister of the Slovak Republic. The Council and European Commission will make statements on Wednesday morning on climate change, and on preparation of the European Council meeting of 21 and 22 March 2019 (which will deal with Brexit preparations – also the subject of several reports, covering issues from fisheries to transport and aviation, expected to be put to the vote on Tuesday morning and Wednesday lunchtime). A statement from the Commission on recommendations for opening negotiations between the EU and the USA is scheduled for Wednesday afternoon.

Data collected for security purposes, and the security of that data, are also very present on the agenda. A joint debate on Monday evening on the European Criminal Records Information System, will consider legislative proposals to upgrade the current system. The changes propose to plug a gap in the system’s coverage, by introducing a search mechanism and by centralising the data for third-country nationals, to allow authorities to share records of non-EU nationals’ criminal convictions. Parliament has been keen to ensure that the revised system upholds fundamental rights, that dual nationals would not be subject to the same fingerprinting requirements as third-country nationals, and that the need to include the sensitive issue of data on dual national citizens in the system would be re-assessed under a future revision.

Another system, this time for border management, the EU Visa Information System, needs to be updated to tighten background checks on visa applicants, and to improve information exchange between EU countries where gaps lead to less security. Parliament will debate a report on Tuesday night that seeks to share the data with other EU systems when the subjects are particularly vulnerable, or are illegally present on EU territory, whilst maintaining strong protection for individuals’ rights to confidentiality. However, this increasing use of IT systems by government bodies and other essential services, such as hospitals, also highlights the equally rising risk of cyber-attacks that could severely disrupt citizens’ lives, health and environment. To increase resilience to such attacks, 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 will debate two reports on Monday evening on an agreement broadening ENISA’s role to consulting and advising governments, citizens and businesses on cybersecurity, and on establishing a European Cybersecurity Industrial, Technology and Research Centre and a Network of National Coordination Centres.

Although the European citizens’ initiative has allowed one million 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. On Monday evening, Members will debate the proposed revision of the European citizens’ initiative to ensure that successful initiatives have greater political impact, by strengthening support for organisers, simplifying the rules and prolonging the deadline for the European Commission to respond.

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, telephones and televisions) and services (such as media, transport and banking), on Wednesday lunchtime Members will vote on a text agreed in interinstitutional negotiations in view of the adoption of the long-awaited European Accessibility Act. The proposed directive aims, among other things, to harmonise accessibility requirements for products and services, and clarify the definition of the obligation of accessibility, as laid down in EU law.

Later on Monday night, with a view to formally adopting a text agreed with the Council, Members will debate a report on unfair trading practices in the food supply chain, of the sort that frequently pit small farmers against large conglomerates, usually to the former’s disadvantage. 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.

On Wednesday night, Members will also return to the debate on safeguarding competition in air transport, where a text agreed in interinstitutional negotiations now requires formal adoption in Parliament. As the original legislation to protect the EU against possible unfair commercial practices in international aviation was ineffective (and never used), the proposed 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.

Following the financial crisis, many citizens and businesses found it difficult to keep up their loan repayments, leading to a large number of non-performing loans on EU bank balance sheets. On Wednesday night, Members will debate a provisional agreement between Parliament, the Commission and the Council to amend the current Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR), so that banks are obliged to ensure they have minimum reserves to cover losses on such loans. The agreement differentiates between secured and unsecured loans, and confirms Parliament’s proposal to reduce possible disincentives for credit purchasers, while also protecting borrowers.

Many EU countries also experienced financial difficulties during the 2008 financial crisis, leading to the creation of the European Stability Mechanism. Proposals to transform this intergovernmental mechanism into a European Monetary Fund are the subject of a debate on Wednesday afternoon. These include changes that would mean decisions on financial support would be taken by reinforced qualified majority (85 % of the votes), instead of unanimity. Pending a decision by Council, where there is marked reluctance on the part of Member States, Parliament’s Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) and Budgets (BUDG) committees have jointly prepared an interim report, the proposal itself being subject to the consent procedure (under which Parliament formally intervenes only at the end to accept or reject Council’s text).

Next year, 2020, is the last in the current multiannual financial framework, and Members will debate a report on Tuesday night on Section III of the proposed guidelines for the 2020 EU budget. Parliament’s Committee on Budgets is calling for an ambitious budgetary commitment prioritising further investments in innovation and research for economic growth, in security, in improving living and working conditions for citizens, and in combating climate change.

On foreign affairs, on Tuesday afternoon Parliament debates the 2018 country report on Turkey, which deals with the country’s EU accession aspirations. Although an EU partner since 1964, the recent military coup and subsequent failure to respect its commitments on human rights have led the Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs to recommend the formal suspension of accession negotiations with Turkey. Nevertheless, the committee’s report also recommends continued dialogue with the country and support for civil society and democratic reform, as well as recognition of Turkey’s role in assisting Syrian refugees. Turning to Afghanistan on Tuesday evening, Parliament will hold a joint debate on whether to give consent to the entry into force 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. The Agreement provides for political dialogue with the EU, on human rights, as well as the rule of law, health, development and education. It also seeks to put measures in place to halt corruption and organised crime, and to promote nuclear security, in a country that has long suffered from extremism and terrorism.

A list of all material prepared for this Plenary Session: Establishment of the European Monetary Fund (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL) European Accessibility Act (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL) Safeguarding competition in air transport (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL) Unfair trading practices in the food supply chain (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL) Visa Information System (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL) Revising the European Citizens’ Initiative (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL) Turkey: 2018 country report (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL) Setting minimum coverage for potential losses stemming from non-performing loans (NPLs) (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL) ENISA and new EU Cybersecurity Act (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL) European Criminal Records Information System (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL) EU-Afghanistan Cooperation Agreement (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL)

Written by Rosamund Shreeves,
Graphics by Eulalia Claros.

During the events held at the European Parliament this week to mark International Women’s Day on 8 March, a number of speakers referred to the slow progress made towards gender equality in the EU over the past decade. How do we know how much progress has been achieved?

There are now a number of global instruments for measuring gender equality, developed by international organisations including the World Bank, the United Nations, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and other bodies, such as the World Economic Forum (WEF). The World Economic Forum’s 2018 Global gender gap report found that improvements in wage equality and the number of women in professional positions have been offset by the stagnating share of women in the workplace and women’s declining representation in politics, coupled with greater inequality in access to health and education, leaving the global gender gap only slightly reduced. It concludes that, at the current rate of change, the global gender gap will take 108 years to close, whilst reaching economic gender parity remains 202 years away.

The European Union also has its own gender equality index, developed by its European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) and tailored to the EU policy context. The index uses comparable data from Eurostat to measure achievements and gender gaps over time in six core domains (work, money, knowledge, time, power and health), assigning scores for Member States between 1 for total inequality and 100 for full equality. It also measures two additional domains, violence against women and intersecting inequalities, not included in the overall score. The latest report, published in 2017, compared trends between 2005 and 2015, concluding that advances have been made, but at a snail’s pace. It concludes that, overall, the EU and its Member States are still only halfway towards achieving full equality between women and men and that there are significant divergences between countries. Whilst most score relatively well on health and education, this cannot be said of employment, access to economic and financial resources or leadership.

You can view details for individual countries and compare countries on the interactive website. EIGE will issue the next update in October 2019.

In the meantime, the European Commission has just issued its 2019 annual report on equality between women and men in the EU, taking stock of progress made towards the goals set out in its strategic engagement for gender equality for 2016-2019.

Written by Jana Titievskaia and Roderick Harte,

© Rawpixel.com / Fotolia

The European Community was founded on the belief that economic integration leads to peace and economic prosperity. Trade is therefore a fundamental part of the identity of the European Union (EU) today. Given the success of the internal market in fostering the longest period of European peace in modern history, the EU considers itself an example of the benefits of trade, globalisation and economic openness. International trade policy is an exclusive competence of the EU, and with the combined economic weight of its Member States behind it, the EU is one of the key players in global trade. Yet trade policy is about more than stability and growth for the EU, as it is also used to encourage poor countries to develop, foster international alliances and support fundamental values in the world. A strong believer in the World Trade Organization (WTO), the EU backs an international trading system based on rules rather than might.

The benefits of globalisation and international trade have nevertheless been questioned in recent years, including within the EU. This has led it to reinvigorate its trade policy, in particular by presenting a new trade strategy and a reflection paper on harnessing globalisation. The EU’s new ‘trade for all’ strategy addresses criticisms and focuses on making its trade policy more effective, transparent and values-based. In line with this strategy, the EU has pursued ongoing trade negotiations with renewed vigour and launched new trade and investment talks, resulting in state-of-the-art agreements with countries such as Canada and Japan.

The EU faces uncertain times due to major shifts in international trade, coming from both the West and the East. In response, it seeks to promote economic openness, standing up for its values and protecting its interests. For example, the EU has retaliated against US steel tariffs and continues to defend the rules-based international trading order. Contentious trading practices on the part of third countries, including China, have led the EU to modernise its trade defence instruments, prepare a new foreign investment screening mechanism and seek a reform of the WTO. The EU is likely to continue this approach in the next parliamentary term, pursuing international cooperation and new agreements, possibly also at a continental level with Africa, and striving to protect its citizens and businesses from economic harm.

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

Written by Mar Negreiro and Tambiama Madiega,

© Zapp2Photo / Shutterstock.com

A digital revolution is transforming the world as we know it at unprecedented speed. Digital technologies have changed the way businesses operate, how people connect and exchange information, and how they interact with the public and private sectors. European businesses and citizens alike need an adequate policy framework and appropriate skills and infrastructures to capture the enormous value created by the digital economy and make a success of digital transformation.

The European Union plays an active role in shaping the digital economy, with cross-policy initiatives that range from boosting investment to reforming EU laws, to non-legislative actions to improve Member States’ coordination and exchange of best practices. The 2014-2019 parliamentary term has seen a number of initiatives in the areas of digitalisation of industry and public services, investment in digital infrastructure and services, research programmes, cybersecurity, e-commerce, copyright and data protection legislation.

There is a growing awareness among EU citizens that digital technologies play an important role in their everyday lives. In a 2017 survey, two-thirds of Europeans said that these technologies have a positive impact on society, the economy and their own lives. However, they also bring new challenges. A majority of respondents felt that the EU, Member States’ authorities and companies need to take action to address the impacts of these technologies.

The European Union will increase its support for digital transformation in the coming years, as illustrated by the recent proposal for the Digital Europe programme (for 2021-2027) – which would be the first ever funding programme dedicated solely to supporting digital transformation in the EU. Further EU action will doubtless be needed, notably to increase infrastructure investment, boost innovation, foster digital champions and businesses digitalisation, reduce existing digital divides, remove remaining barriers in the digital single market and ensure an adequate legal and regulatory framework in the areas of advanced computing and data, artificial intelligence, and cybersecurity.

The European Parliament, as co-legislator, is closely involved in shaping the policy framework that will help citizens and businesses fully exploit the potential of digital technologies.

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

Written by Irina Popescu,

© didier salou / Fotolia

The European Union has sole responsibility for the conservation of its marine fisheries resources, and manages them under the common fisheries policy (CFP). Launched in 1983 and reformed every ten years since then, the CFP has come a long way. The current framework, resulting from the 2013 CFP reform, is aimed at ensuring that EU fisheries are sustainable – environmentally, economically and socially. The CFP has a dedicated financial instrument – the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) – with a budget of €6.4 billion for the 2014-2020 period.

The 2013 reform introduced the target to achieve exploitation of all stocks at sustainable levels by 2020, and provided several major tools to support progress towards this goal. In particular, adoption of multiannual plans has become a priority, to ensure long-term management of stocks. An obligation to land all catches was designed to end the practice of discarding fish back into the sea. The reform introduced regionalisation of decision-making, with the possibility to adopt conservation measures based on joint recommendations by the Member States concerned.

With implementation of the reformed CFP as the main feature of the 2014-2019 parliamentary term, legislative work has made headway on several important topics. A series of multiannual plans have been launched, and two of them, concerning fisheries in the Baltic Sea and the North Sea, are now in force. The landing obligation has been phased in, as scheduled, from 2015 to 2019. The EU adopted an updated framework for collection of fisheries data to support management decisions, as well as a new system of managing fishing authorisations, and improved monitoring of EU vessels fishing outside EU waters. EU activities have also covered different aspects of the CFP’s external dimension, such as conclusion of fisheries agreements with third countries, and participation in international fisheries governance. In the future, further progress is expected on issues such as adoption of multiannual plans and the revision of the fisheries control system. The EMFF will be renewed as part of the next EU multiannual budget for 2021-2027. Taking stock of progress made in implementing the latest reform and achieving its objectives, with a view to future CFP developments, will also be on the agenda.

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

Written by Cécile Remeur,

© bankrx / Fotolia

Tax policy, and the fight against tax fraud, have gained particular exposure over the five past years as a result of the light shed by repeated tax leaks and the related journalistic investigations. This has added to the increasing lack of acceptance of damaging tax practices, especially since the recession and the resulting budget constraints. The fight against tax fraud aims at recovering revenue not paid to the public authorities. It also aims at ensuring that fraudsters do not have an advantage over compliant taxpayers, thus ensuring tax fairness between taxpayers. Unpaid taxes result in reduced resources for national and European Union (EU) budgets. Though the scale of unpaid taxes is by nature difficult to estimate, available assessments hint at large amounts of resources lost to public finances.

Citizens’ evaluation of the EU’s current involvement in the fight against tax fraud has improved, but the majority of citizens in each Member State still share expectations for even more intensive involvement. Despite this, there is still a considerable gap between citizens’ evaluations and expectations of EU involvement. There is still room for improvement in addressing the preferences and expectations of EU citizens.

The fight against tax fraud is shared between Member States and the EU. Coming under tax policy, it has remained closely linked to Member State sovereignty, protected by the requirement for unanimity and a special legislative procedure which keeps tax matters firmly under the Council’s control. This has been the case since the Union’s beginnings, in spite of the proposed limited changes to the tax framework. As shortcomings have been more clearly identified, the discussion has been opened anew in the latest speeches on the State of the Union delivered by the President of the European Commission before the European Parliament.

Fighting tax fraud covers not only actions against illegal behaviour, but also the deterrence of fraud and measures to foster compliance. As a result it involves a large reboot of tax provisions, to upgrade them for the scale and features of tax fraud as it is and as it evolves. Yet in spite of the notable deliveries during the current parliamentary term, there remains work ahead, namely because all provisions need to be implemented, enforced, monitored and, if need be, updated, to keep up with the versatility of tax fraud, as well as the need to keep pace with digital evolution globally.

Read this complete briefing on ‘EU policies – Delivering for citizens: The fight against tax fraud‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Christian Scheinert (1st edition),

© Goodpics / Fotolia

The European Commission’s proposal for transforming the intergovernmental European Stability Mechanism (ESM) into a European monetary fund (EMF) under EU law would provide it with wide-ranging tasks. The ESM was created at the height of the European sovereign debt crisis in order to provide financial assistance for governments that had lost, or were about to lose, access to financial markets. It was established outside the Community framework by an intergovernmental treaty and is a permanent rescue mechanism aimed at safeguarding the financial stability of the euro area. The proposal met with considerable opposition at Council level, as the Council wishes to maintain the ESM’s intergovernmental character, and would expand its remit only slightly. The European Parliament, whose legislative powers are limited within the consent procedure, will vote on an interim report in plenary.

Versions

• March 2019: ‘Establishment of a European monetary fund (EMF)‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of a European Monetary Fund Committees responsible: Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) and Budgets (BUDG) (jointly under Rule 55) COM(2017) 827 of 6.12.2017 Rapporteurs: Vladimír Maňka (S&D, Slovakia)
Pedro Silva Pereira (S&D, Portugal) 2017/0333(APP) Shadow rapporteurs: Siegfried Muresan (EPP, Romania)
Tom Vandenkendelaere (EPP, Belgium)
Jean Arthuis (ALDE, France)
Wolf Klinz (ALDE, Germany)
Bernd Kölmel (ECR, Germany)
Sven Giegold (Greens/EFA, Germany)
Dimitros Papadimoulis (GUE/NDL, Greece)
Liadh Ní Riada (GUE/NDL, Ireland)
Jörg Meuthen (EFDD, Germany)
Marco Valli (EFDD, Italy)
Barbara Kappel (ENF, Austria) Consent procedure (APP) Next steps expected: Vote in plenary on an interim report.

Written by Rosamund Shreeves.

Women have your say…

With the 2019 European elections fast approaching, the European Parliament’s Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (FEMM) is focusing its International Women’s Day event on the theme of women in politics, highlighting the contribution women have already made and urging more women to get involved, both as voters and as candidates. The Parliament is not alone. Women’s organisations, including Europe’s largest umbrella organisation, the European Women’s Lobby (EWL), and the more recently established European Women Alliance (EWA) want to see a higher turnout among women voters in the 2019 elections. They are also calling both for better gender balance in the next Parliament and top-level jobs in the EU institutions and for a new impetus for gender equality at EU level and the funding to support it.

State of play

Women in national parliaments compared with the European Parliament

Not least due to activism by women and their allies, the political landscape now looks far more balanced than it did exactly a century ago when women in several EU countries (Luxembourg, the Netherlands), first won the vote in national elections, got elected to the national parliament (Luxembourg, Austria), or held a ministerial position (Ireland).  At the time of writing, three EU Member States (Germany, Romania and the UK) have women prime ministers, who are likely to be joined shortly by a fourth in Estonia. EU-wide data on equality between women and men in decision-making shows that governments in Spain, Sweden and France are at gender parity. However, at the other end of the spectrum, governments in Hungary and Malta have only 7.1% and 12% of women respectively. Men outnumber women in every EU Member State’s national parliament, sometimes by a wide margin and the same goes for regional assemblies. When it comes to the European Parliament, the share of female MEPs currently stands at 36.1%, having risen steadily after each election from a low 16.6 % in the first directly elected legislature in 1979. This is above the world average for national parliaments and the EU average for national parliaments, which stands at 30.2%.  However, it is still some way from the parity democracy, which Simone Veil and nineteen other women leaders called for in 1992 at the “European Summit of Women in Power”, which first put the issue on the EU agenda. Its five key arguments for equal representation—equality, democracy, satisfying the needs and interests of women, good use of human resources, and improving the policymaking process—still resonate today.

We need more women leaders because…  The Women Political Leaders network is encouraging prominent male politicians, including the current and former presidents of the European Commission and EU Member States, to say why more women are needed in parliaments and as political leaders.

An obstacle-strewn path to political office

Analysis of the outcome of the 2014 European elections found that women were popular with the electorate. According to the 2017 Special Eurobarometer survey on women in politics, 86 % of respondents think that a female political representative can represent their interests. So why are women still under-represented?

The European Women’s Lobby boils the considerable research down to 5 key factors:  Confidence: women – for a variety of highly rational reasons – have more doubts putting themselves up for election; Candidate selection: once women agree to run, it’s often difficult for them to get an electable spot on the election list; Culture: politics is a men’s world. Sexism is rampant and external threats – women – are often not welcome; Cash: when women run for election, their campaigns often receive less funding than their male counterparts); Childcare: across the EU, women spend double the amount of time on childcare compared to men.

Women in EP and national parliaments

A survey of women’s experiences of selection and election in the UK gives a striking illustration of the cumulative impact these obstacles can have on the journey to political office and beyond, including some of the  additional or specific barriers different groups of women can face on account of their age, class, ethnic background, religion, disability, or sexual orientation:

• Deciding whether to stand for office: Respondents of both sexes had a long-standing interest in politics, but women were less likely to see themselves as future MPs because they thought that they did not ‘fit’ the traditional image or felt actively discouraged from going forward for selection by party officials or culture (being talked over, feeling invisible). As party activists, some women found that the timing and location of meetings did not take account of parenting responsibilities or mobility issues, creating further obstacles to being active in the party and therefore to building the necessary credibility, experience and networks to consider standing for office.
• Getting selected as a candidate: In practice, the existing selection process was far from neutral or meritocratic. The time and financial costs involved were a major barrier for many women, especially those from lower socio-economic groups and particularly when employers were not flexible or supportive. Reconciling standing as a candidate and building political capital on top of family commitments and fulltime work was more of an impediment for women than for their male counterparts. Unequal access to resources was compounded by the attitudes and practices of party ‘selectorates’, whose patronage systems and informal selection criteria (e.g. prioritising particular career trajectories or histories of party activism) indirectly advantaged men during the selection process. Across the political spectrum, women respondents also reported more overt forms of bias in political parties, from a preconceived view of the ‘ideal’ candidate as male (and also white, middle class and able bodied), to assumptions about women’s and men’s abilities and roles (women but not men being asked about their marital status or children), and active resistance to selecting a female candidate. This could take the form of resentment and hostility within the local party towards equality measures, or outright opposition, harassment and threats of violence to women candidates from party members, the public and the media.
• Getting elected: The issue of parties not selecting women candidates in ‘target’ or ‘winnable’ seats was a barrier to their electoral success. (Here, the equivalent in PR systems would be placing on a party list). Issues around resources, particularly money, time and flexibility, were even more important at this stage. Not being selected in a ‘target’ or ‘winnable’ seat could also lead to women candidates missing out on additional electoral support and resources from their parties. Respondents felt that in some more socially conservative areas the electorate were reluctant to vote for candidates from minority groups.
• Taking office: Once elected, aspects of political life continued to present challenges. Parliament’s long and unsociable working hours, late-night voting, the requirement to be present for votes, commuting between two places and expectations that MPs should be available to constituents around the clock were all issues for female respondents, as was the level of abuse and harassment they face.

Concerns about managing the lifestyle of an MP and the sheer extent of violence directed against women in politics and public life, particularly on social media, may be deterring women from engaging in politics because they find the environment too toxic.

Getting more women into office

Against this background, what can be done to support women in politics? Here again, the European Women’s Lobby has five take-aways from the research:
Confidence: Invest in women. Set up ambitious training and mentoring programs;
Candidate selection: Establish quota or zipping systems in order to ensure gender balanced lists. Headhunt women candidates;
Culture: Establish zero tolerance for sexism with clear channels for reporting sexual harassment;
Cash: Provide earmarked funding for women candidates until equal representation is reached;
Childcare: Change the “long hours” culture in politics. Provide childcare facilities.

Looking specifically to the 2019 European elections, research for Parliament’s FEMM Committee stresses that political parties play a particularly key role in promoting candidates and, with the lists still open, urges them to consider lists that will improve gender balance in the next Parliament.  The Parliament itself has urged Member States and political parties to promote gender-balanced electoral lists and would have liked to see this enshrined in the reformed European Electoral Act.

Parliament’s Vice-President, Mairead McGuiness has spoken about her own experiences, noting that she had previously rejected the idea of introducing gender quotas, but has now come to support them as one way of challenging women’s invisibility in the political sphere, together with other ways of supporting women coming up through the ranks, at the grassroots and in local politics, or women entering politics at a later stage in their careers. Quotas are not about numeric 50/50 parity, but about creating the kind of political system that allows both men and women to participate and giving the electorate real choices about who will represent them.

Getting more women into office – less talk, more action

Interview: Empowering Women in Politics, Mairead McGuinness, Interview with the EP vice-president

What about the role of the media?

As researcher Maarja Lühiste explains, more and better media coverage would also shape future opportunities, by influencing women’s decisions to run for office, political party candidate choices, and young people’s perceptions of politics as a suitable career for women.

Interview: Empowering Women in Politics, Maarja Lühiste

Further reading

For International Women’s Day, EPRS has published several briefings, included in our Topical Digest on Women and Politics.

• Women in politics in the EU: State of play, Briefing by Rosamund Shreeves and Martina Prpic, with Eulalia Claros, February 2019
• Women in parliaments, Infographic by Martina Prpic, Giulio Sabbati and Samy Chahri, February 2019
• Women in regional and local government,‘At a glance’ note by Vasileios Margaras, March 2019 (to be published soon)
  
• Women in politics: a global perspective, Briefing by Joanna Apap, Eulalia Claros and Ionel Zamfir, February 2019
• The place of women in European film productions: Fighting the celluloid ceiling, Briefing by Ivana Katsarova, January 2019

This publication is meant as a background document to support the debate that will take place during the workshop ‘Farming without plant protection products?’, 6 March 2019, which contrasts the contents of this report with perspectives from conventional agriculture, the stance of organic farmers and the viewpoint of consumers.

Can we grow without using herbicides, fungicides and insecticides?

©pcfruit

Food security and healthy food for 11 billion people by 2100 is one of the biggest challenges of this century. It is one of the most important, if not the most important, human rights, and any agricultural system has to fulfil this requirement within the planetary sustainability boundaries. This implies that no further land increase for agriculture is acceptable, since this is the most important driver for biodiversity loss, greenhouse gas increase and environmental impact. According to scientific literature, there is no other option than to increase the global yield efficiency and reduce the yield gap to guarantee global food security. As such, one can ask the question if it is possible to maintain current yields in north-west Europe and increase yields in other regions of the world without plant protection products (PPPs) or with reduced PPP use. But how can we deal with the public perception that PPPs are unhealthy, with very negative impacts on biodiversity and environment?

PPPs include herbicides, fungicides and insecticides. PPPs can be synthetic PPPs or natural PPPs (‘biopesticides’), used in organic agriculture. The amount of PPPs used has doubled since 1980 but the development of new conventional (synthetic) PPPs has decreased, partly because of legislation issues, while the number of biopesticides has increased in the last decades. The increased use of PPPs was one of the drivers of the ‘green revolution’, and contributed to the 2.5-times increase of crop yields in developed countries. Looking at the EU countries, there are considerable differences in PPP use and this correlates with differences in crop yield. The shift from broadly acting PPPs to more specific PPPs, that only target specific pests or diseases and avoid impact on non-target organisms, implies that farmers have to spray more with these specific acting PPPs. This is the most important reason for the recent increase in PPP use, without the positive effect on crop yield increase of the past.

The introduction of PPPs in the EU is very strictly regulated and involves a long procedure, including a science-based risk assessment. This includes an evaluation of the toxic effects on humans and other organisms. PPPs are today, when applied properly, much safer than in the past and there is a strict control on residues. A safety factor of 100 ensures a much lower risk level than other daily risks to which humans are exposed. Also the application technology of PPPs has improved considerably, which contributes to lower impacts on the environment and risks for applicants. Risk assessment costs for the crop protection industry per active substance increased from US$41 million in 1995 to US$71 million nowadays.

Crop protection not only entails the use of PPPs but also other alternative measures, such as crop rotation, the implementation of resistant cultivars (not at all or less available in many crops), soil management and others. Without PPPs, yields will be reduced, depending on the crop, and reductions of between 19 % (wheat) and 42 % (potato) have been reported. These reductions are higher in regions with high actual production, the latter also as a result of the input of fertilizers, high-yielding varieties, irrigation, etc. Without PPPs, including biopesticides, the food security of 11 billion people in the future is threatened. On the other hand, it is still an open question whether it is possible to reduce the use of PPPs without yield reduction. There are several indications that, for specific crops, a reduction in PPP use is feasible. The general tendency is that a reduction seems possible in the case of (very) high actual PPP use, but not in the case of low use.

PPPs still have unwanted and unavoidable side effects, such as their negative impact on biodiversity. However, this correlation is not always well-studied and it seems that the most important effect on biodiversity (loss) is due to land use changes. In this respect it is clear that organic farming, and its implementation in agro-ecology, is often not the best choice. At farm level, all scientific meta-studies indicate that the increase in biodiversity is rather marginal, but that, at global level, there will be a drastic decrease in biodiversity, since organic farming is approximately 25 % less productive than conventional farming. This implies that, to feed 11 billion people, more land is needed at the expense of biodiversity. Moreover, the perception that natural PPPs, used in organic farming, are less toxic and lead to less residues is not always correct and needs further scientific confirmation.

Although there has been a lot of progress in the past concerning the impact of PPPs on humans and environment, considerable improvements are still possible. Reduction of PPP use seems one way, e.g. based on sophisticated warning and decision support systems, but such reduction is only realistic when the risk of yield or food quality reduction is acceptable for the farmer. Precision farming, including remote sensing with unmanned aerial vehicles, can also contribute to more targeted application and reduction of PPP use. An important contribution will also come from the breeding of more resistant varieties, both by classical breeding and by new breeding techniques, such as precision mutation breeding using the CRISPR-Cas approach or by genetic transformation. The latter techniques will be unavoidable to reach the SDGs concerning food security, and healthy foods with respect to the planetary sustainability boundaries.

Read the complete In-depth Analysis on ‘Farming without plant protection products‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by François Théron,

© MoiraM / Fotolia

The European Day of Remembrance of Victims of Terrorism has been established as 11 March each year, marking the Madrid bombings in 2004. The protection of victims of terrorism constitutes an essential part of the EU’s action to address all dimensions of the terrorist threat. Following the wave of terror that has hit Europe in recent years, rules and sanctions related to terrorist activities have been strengthened, while better protection and support to victims of terrorism is being ensured through action at EU level.

Background

Since 2002, the EU has developed the basis for European legislation aimed specifically at combating terrorism, recognising that victims of terrorist offences are vulnerable and therefore specific measures are necessary to protect them. The European Union’s 2005 Counter-Terrorism Strategy underlines that solidarity, assistance and compensation of victims of terrorism and their families constitute an integral part of the response to terrorism, at both national and European levels. In 2010, the Stockholm Programme called for examination of how EU legislation for the protection of victims of crime, in particular victims of terrorism, could be improved. To this end, an integrated and coordinated approach has been developed, through the April 2015 European Agenda on Security, which sets out a comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy that further enhances the protection of victims, regardless of where in the EU a terrorist attack has taken place.

Legal framework

Victims of intentional and violent crime have the right to access national compensation schemes under the April 2004 Council Directive (2004/80/EC) relating to compensation to crime victims. As terrorist attacks qualify as such intentional and violent crime, victims can trigger the application of the EU-wide compensation scheme in situations where the attack was committed in an EU country other than the victim’s country of residence.

The October 2012 Directive (2012/29/EU) on victim’s rights recognises that victims of terrorism may need special attention due to the particular nature of the crime they had to face. A victim of terrorism is a natural person who has suffered harm, including physical, mental and emotional harm or economic loss, insofar as that was directly caused by a terrorist offence, or a family member of a person whose death was directly caused by a terrorist offence and who has suffered harm as a result of that person’s death. Member States should therefore take particular account of their needs by protecting their dignity and security.

Directive (EU) 2017/541 from March 2017 on combating terrorism introduces measures of protection and assistance for victims, such as the right to immediate access to medical and psychological support and information on any legal, practical or financial matters. The directive strengthens the emergency response mechanisms to assist victims of terrorism, immediately after a terrorist attack and for as long as necessary. In particular, EU Member States must ensure that victims of terrorism who are residents of an EU country other than that in which the terrorist offence was committed have full access to support services and compensation schemes available in the country.

Co-legislators’ positions Council of the European Union

In its conclusions on victims of terrorism of May 2018, the Council encourages cooperation between the authorities in charge of protecting the victims of terrorism, in order to facilitate the rapid exchange of information and assistance in the event of a terrorist attack. To meet this objective, the Council invites the EU Member States to nominate contact points at national level in order to share information and build synergies with existing EU structures, such as the European Network on Victims’ Rights, the European Judicial Network (EJN), Eurojust, Europol and crisis management networks.

European Parliament

In May 2018, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the implementation of Directive 2012/29/EU, it emphasised the specific nature of the victims of terrorism, who fall into a distinct category of victims and have specific needs. It called on the European Commission to propose a specific directive on the protection of victims of terrorism. It also encouraged the Member States to provide adequate information and free legal aid to those victims who are also parties to criminal proceedings, in order that they may obtain applicable compensation. European Parliament

Figures on terrorist attacks and victims

According to Europol, in recent years there has been an increase in the frequency of jihadist attacks, but a decrease in the sophistication of their preparation and execution. In 2017 alone, a total of 205 foiled, failed and completed terrorist attacks were reported in nine EU Member States. In 2017, a total of 1 219 individuals were arrested in the EU for terrorism related offences.

The number of victims in the EU, and Europeans killed by terrorist actions in the rest of the world, amounts to 1 790 victims in the 2000-2017 period. Fifteen European countries have been directly hit by attacks, with a total of 740 people dead. Spain, with 269 deaths, is the country with the most victims, followed by France with 254. The United Kingdom (120), Belgium (36) and Germany (29) come next. Furthermore, 26 other countries have witnessed the death of 1 050 Europeans within their territories.

Likewise, the Special Committee on Terrorism (TERR), established in 2017, called on the Commission, in its November 2018 final report, to put forward a legislative proposal on the victims of terrorism that effectively tackles victims’ needs in the short and long term, including a common definition for the status of ‘victim of terrorism’. In its resolution of 12 December 2018 on the findings and recommendations of the TERR committee, the European Parliament requested the Commission to launch a dialogue with the Member States in order to reduce the large disparities existing in the level of financial compensation granted at national level to victims of terrorist attacks. Moreover, it urged Member States to effectively transpose the provisions set out in Directive 2012/29/EU on victims’ rights and Directive (EU) 2017/541 on combating terrorism. Finally, both the Council and the Parliament have repeatedly called on the Commission to establish an EU Coordination Centre for victims of terrorism (CCVT), which would be a hub of expertise, guidance and support in cases of attacks in a Member State. In March 2018, the Commission committed to have the centre ‘up and running in 2019’.

Among proposals to improve the situation of victims of terrorism, the European Parliament has called on the Member States to:

• Provide specific training for professionals of all relevant national services responsible for assisting the victims of terrorist acts.
• Create coordinated mechanisms for collecting information on the victims of terrorist attacks taking place in their territory, to provide assistance in line with their specific needs.
• Establish a web portal and emergency telephone line at national level, giving access to confidential, free-of-charge and easily accessible support services.
• Establish a coordination centre in the event of a terrorist attack, which includes services such as specialist emotional support, vocational rehabilitation to help victims to find new jobs or change careers, and the facilitation of safe virtual connections with other victims.
• Complement the assistance provided to victims with measures such as cash advances to help cover immediate expenses, childcare and home support, tax relief schemes and aid with transport in the case of disability.
• Hold conferences, and establish memorials and audiovisual material in order to raise awareness among EU citizens.

The Commission has established a European Network of Associations of Victims of Terrorism (NAVT) aimed at fostering cross-border cooperation between associations of victims of terrorist attacks in the Member States, and enhancing the defence of victims’ rights at European level. Among their activities, they identify best practices and share information on the mapping of associations supporting victims of terrorism, funding opportunities as well as maintaining a calendar of relevant events.

Read the complete ‘at a glance’ note on ‘Victims of terrorism‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© Николай Григорьев / Fotolia

The situation in Venezuela appears to be approaching a tipping-point, as President Nicolas Maduro faces growing international and domestic pressure to relinquish power to National Assembly leader and self-proclaimed acting President Juan Guaidó. The latter is recognised by many Western countries as the legitimate interim leader of the oil-rich Latin American country, which has seen its economy undermined by mismanagement and corruption. Maduro, political heir to Hugo Chávez, is backed by China, Russia and the country’s military. He has recently ordered troops to block the opposition’s US-backed attempt to bring in aid to the country, leading to violent clashes. To date, some 3.4 million Venezuelans have left the country to escape the crisis.

The European Parliament has already adopted a non-binding resolution that recognised Juan Guaidó as the legitimate interim President of Venezuela.

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

Europe should do better on Venezuela
European Council on Foreign Relations, February 2019

Venezuela’s Maidan moment, and why realpolitik is against the interest of the West
Wilfried Martens Centre, February 2019

Russian mercenaries on the march: Next stop Venezuela?
European Council on Foreign Relations, February 2019

Amid political uncertainties, Venezuela’s oil industry situation worsens
Council on Foreign Relations, February 2019

Negotiating Venezuela’s future: First agreement, then elections
Finnish Institute of International Affairs, February 2019

Beginning the endgame in Venezuela
Center for Strategic and International Studies, February 2019

Maduro’s allies: Who backs the Venezuelan regime?
Council on Foreign Relations, February 2019

Venezuela’s Crisis: Italy Clashes with the EU common approach
Istituto Affari Internazionali, February 2019

Putin in Caracas
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, February 2019

China-Venezuela economic relations: Hedging Venezuelan bets with Chinese characteristics
Wilson Center, February 2019

What we heard in Caracas
International Crisis Group, February 2019

Trump is getting it right on Venezuela. In fact, he needs to double down
American Enterprise Institute, February 2019

In Venezuela, Maduro and Guaidó are on a collision course over humanitarian aid
Atlantic Council, February 2019

A Venezuelan refugee crisis
Council on Foreign Relations, February 2019

Why did China stand by Maduro in Venezuela?
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, February 2019

What comes next for Venezuela’s oil industry?
Center for Strategic and International Studies, February 2019

Russian-Venezuelan relations at a crossroads
Wilson Center, February 2019

Venezuela: A rough road ahead
International Crisis Group, January 2019

Venezuela: The rise and fall of a petrostate
Council on Foreign Relations, January 2019

In Venezuela, a potential U.S.-Russian crisis?
Rand Corporation, January 2019

¿Por qué Nicolás Maduro sigue en el poder pese al colapso de Venezuela?
Barcelona Centre for International Affairs, January 2019

Creativity amid crisis: Legal pathways for Venezuelan migrants in Latin America
Migration Policy Institute, January 2019

The top conflicts to watch in 2019: Venezuela
Council on Foreign Relations, January 2019

Venezuelans must lead in building an off-ramp for Maduro
Brookings Institution, January 2019

Amérique latine: L’année politique 2018
Centre d’études et de recherches internationales, Observatoire politique de l’amérique latine et des Caraïbes, January 2018

How many more migrants and refugees can we expect out of Venezuela?
Brookings Institution, December 2018

Read this ‘at a glance’ note on ‘Venezuela‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Eamonn Noonan with Henry Eviston,

ESPAS 2018: Foresight: Thinking about tomorrow today

As is customary, EPRS hosted the second day of the annual ESPAS conference, which took place in late November (the video proceedings are available online). ESPAS is the European Strategy and Policy Analysis System, and this event has become the major interinstitutional foresight set piece of the year in Brussels. The event aims to promote cooperation between European bodies, working towards a common analysis of major global trends, and of the choices and challenges they pose for Europe.

The afternoon opened with a session on Global Power in 2030. Shada Islam, Director of Friends of Europe, sees that it is increasingly difficult to generate international consensus on most important issues, and suggests that a model based on ‘constellations’ could help: multilateral agreements in policy areas such as climate change, security cooperation or development initiatives, each bringing together different sets of countries.

ESPAS 2018: Interview with Nicolas MIAILHE

Dr Bérénice Guyot-Rechard added that the EU must increase its visibility in South and South-Eastern Asia. The EU should seek mutually beneficial cooperation with India on joint priorities such as climate change and sustainable urbanisation. Nicholas Miailhe, President of the Future Society, noted that the EU does not lack the ability to innovate, but rather the business models needed to develop innovation, in contrast to the United States. He argued for a focus on European technological ‘champions’.

A specialist panel on foresight, ‘Thinking About Today Tomorrow’ asked how foresight can be better understood by politicians and the public. Mathew Burrows, of the Atlantic Council, argued that history is an effective tool to make the future relevant. Where leaders see concrete examples from the past, they are more likely to listen to arguments about the unintended consequences of their policies. This can help change how people think – a central objective of foresight. Florence Gaub, deputy director of the EUISS, sees the psychology of foresight as more of an art than a science. Inbuilt emotional traps make it difficult to think clearly about the future. Foresight practitioners are there to ‘annoy’ those decision-makers who think only of the short-term. Policy-makers should aim to be trusted, rather than liked.

ESPAS 2018: Global power in 2030, Catarina TULLY

Catarina Tully, founder of the School of International Futures, added that there is now an effort to teach foresight in schools; as it needs to become a natural part of people’s thinking. Pei Shan Lim added that her Centre for Strategic Futures engages constantly with every level of the Singaporean government. New teaching techniques, such as gaming, are a key part of the effort to embed foresight in officials’ thinking.

Franck Debié, Deputy Head of Cabinet of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament, led the penultimate session and traced the evolution of ESPAS. He highlighted how much has been achieved since 2014, in terms of both institutional cooperation and policy output. The concluding panel included Klaus Welle, Secretary-General of the European Parliament, Ann Mettler, Head of the European Political Strategy Centre, and others. It summed up several themes emerging from the two days: the importance of honest advice, of emotional engagement, of values, and of realism; and the ability to review, test and update positions as necessary.

Our first blog post covering the ESPAS conference’s morning proceedings.

Videos of the Conference discussions.

Interviews with our speakers and participants.

Photos from the event

See more photos on the conference website.

Click to view slideshow.