European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

Written by Martin Svášek,

© anawat_s / Fotolia

The European Fund for Sustainable Development (EFSD) is one of the EU financial instruments that promote a proactive development aid policy. It covers three areas of activity (‘pillars’): financing, providing technical assistance for the development of bankable projects, and helping to improve the business environment in partner countries through dialogue.

The EFSD promotes investment in EU partner countries, especially fragile ones, by making financing capacity in the form of grants, guarantees and other financial instruments available to eligible counterparts. It furthermore seeks to increase access to financing, primarily in Africa and the European neighbourhood countries. EFSD investment seeks to address specific socio-economic root causes of migration, foster the sustainable reintegration of migrants returning to their countries of origin, and strengthen transit and host communities.

Another aim of the EFSD is to contribute to the achievement of the UN 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda and to the implementation of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. The fund’s strong environmental focus requires that 28 % of its financing be invested in measures related to climate action, renewable energy and resource efficiency.

Structure of the EFSD

The EFSD includes two regional investment mechanisms – the African Investment Platform and the Neighbourhood Investment Platform. These were established on the basis of two previously existing blending facilities (which combine EU grants with loans or equity from public and private financiers): the Africa Investment Facility (AfIF) and the Neighbourhood Investment Facility (NIF), whose funds together amounted to €2.6 billion. Under the present arrangement, blending operations are combined with EFSD guarantee operations, which are based, in their turn, on the existence of the EFSD Guarantee Fund. The EFSD Guarantee Fund amounts to €750 million (€350 million from the general budget of the EU and €400 million from the 11th European Development Fund).

The EFSD Guarantee Fund provides liquidity to compensate, if necessary, losses covered under guarantee agreements. It is envisaged that, by 2020, the EFSD guarantee will reach a total volume of up to €1.5 billion and will leverage additional financing by allowing risk-sharing with private investors, international financial institutions and development banks. Depending on the total volume of the EFSD guarantee, it might leverage from an expected €44 billion, up to the double of this amount whenever eligible partners, such as EU Member States, European Free Trade Association states, or others, make important additional contributions.

First results

According to the Commission’s (first) 2017 EFSD operational report, in 2017 the EU agreed to invest nearly €1.3 billion in 52 blending projects in Africa and the European Neighbourhood under the EIP. The EU contribution is expected to trigger around €10.6 billion in public and private investment (24.1 % of the €44 billon target for 2020) after the EFSD’s first year of operation.

The report highlighted that around €400 million of EU investments under the EFSD had gone to Neighbourhood Investment Platform countries (22 projects) and almost €900 million to Africa Investment Platform countries (30 projects). The EFSD leveraged investments worth €5 billion and €5.6 billion respectively. The report reflecting the results for 2018 should be published soon.

Read the complete briefing on ‘How the EU budget is spent: European Fund for Sustainable Development‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Lieve Van Woensel, with Jens Van Steerteghem and Richelle Boone,

© mycteria / Fololia

Should we be prepared to change the population composition of a species in order to wipe out a disease that is a terrible burden to mankind? During a well-attended working breakfast organised by the European Parliament’s Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA) on 19 March 2019, experts and citizens delved into the case study of eradicating malaria by applying gene-drive technology. This genetic tool could enable us to suppress mosquito populations that transmit malaria by reducing the number of females. This would be done by introducing in some mosquitos a genetic mechanism that easily spreads – ‘drives’ – through the whole population over generations.

The purpose of the event was to gain insight into the science and ethics of gene-drive technology, and of genome-editing technologies in general. The meeting was chaired by Kay Swinburne, (ECR, UK) a STOA Panel member, who underlined the importance of invigorating public debate on such technologies in her opening statement. With more than 200 million cases of malaria each year worldwide, of which over 400 000 are fatal, no one doubts the importance of fighting this disease. This, as Kay Swinburne explained, makes the case less controversial than, for instance, human genome editing, and therefore it provides a good opportunity to focus on understanding the benefits of genetic technology. Such an understanding, combined with knowledge of the risks and concerns, and with awareness of different stakeholder perspectives, should help policy-makers anticipate the application of genome-editing technologies. With three expert presentations and a debate, this event provided input on all these fronts.

First, Jens Van Steerteghem, of KU Leuven, and a former STOA trainee, gave the audience a technical overview of gene-drive technology in the context of eradicating malaria. His presentation was based on a scientific briefing that was used in a preliminary foresight analysis project on gene drive and malaria. This project aimed to map the potential societal impact of gene-drive technology and exposed the need for a general risk assessment framework for biotechnological applications. Jens Steerteghem explained how the number of female mosquitos would be suppressed if the gene-drive method were applied: by introducing in males a gene on the Y chromosome that cuts their X chromosome, so that they only pass Y chromosomes to their offspring. This offspring are consequently exclusively male, and additionally carry the new gene on their Y chromosome.

Delphine Thizy, Stakeholder Engagement Manager with the non-profit research organisation Target Malaria delivered the second presentation. This organisation is developing the gene-drive technology method to reduce malaria. Delphine Thizy described the current state of the research at her organisation, commenting that only in September 2018, their team published a paper on a successful eradication experiment on a mosquito population in a containment cage. She also addressed some of the misconceptions and concerns she hears when explaining Target Malaria’s plans. These worries are expressed both by citizens in Western countries but also, and more importantly, from stakeholders in countries in sub-Saharan Africa that suffer from malaria. People question, for example, if the targeted mosquito species are crucial pollinators, or if the reduction of mosquitos would disturb food chains. For both cases, she indicated that there is no need to worry: the targeted mosquitoes are not known to be pollinators and just three mosquito species would be targeted out of 830 species in Africa alone.

Next, Sybille van den Hove, Executive Director of the Bridging Sustainability Consultancy Company, informed and advised attendees on the precautionary principle. She first explained that there are many different definitions and interpretations for this principle. She prefers the European Environment Agency description: ‘The precautionary principle provides justification for public policy and other actions in situations of scientific complexity, uncertainty and ignorance, where there may be a need to act in order to avoid, or reduce, potentially serious or irreversible threats to health and/or the environment, […]’. Since one of these situations is the case of eradicating malaria with gene-drive technology, Sybille van den Hove explained that precaution should be a key principle in legislating on the issue. She listed many pieces of advice for policy-makers desiring to apply the precautionary principle, such as designing policy processes so as to allow for revision, thus making it easy to adapt to new knowledge; being open-minded; acknowledging the possibility of surprises; and being able to discard ‘bad good ideas’. Another recommendation was to be reflective, both by measuring an innovation against one’s societal visions and by being aware of broader philosophical discussions connected to certain topics.

During the debate following the three presentations, participants raised several interesting points. One called for attention to the possibility of malaria-transmitting mosquitoes again becoming prevalent in Europe as a result of climate change, a concern Delphine Thizy attenuated. It was also pointed out that tiger mosquitoes in Italy could be future targets of gene-drive, as they are carriers of diseases such as zika, dengue and chikungunya. Another attendee commented that better education and a global governance infrastructure would be necessary to successfully deal with new complex technologies. A fourth participant emphasised the need for a strictly philosophical discussion on genome editing, in addition to the debate on possible consequences. He argued that the moral question about using technology to instrumentally design an animal species for human purposes is what is fundamentally at stake. In the past, political views on biotechnologies were most often divided at this level of the debate.

Wrapping up the event, Kay Swinburne concluded that the dialogue between experts, policy-makers and the public should be continued. She also emphasised that she is happy that the EU’s strong regulatory framework prevents technologies such as gene-drive from being introduced for the sake of profit alone. She praised the fact that such implementations only take place after a serious debate that covers all aspects: from the ethical to the economic, and from the societal to the environmental. Because of this, she explained, for her and for many other policy-makers, support for innovation should not be understood as support for individual profits, but as support for the many benefits that could result.

Click to view slideshow.

Written by Clare Ferguson,

European Union, EP

The first item on Parliament’s agenda in April is – unsurprisingly given the paralysis in the United Kingdom regarding which direction to take on Brexit – Council and Commission statements on the United Kingdom withdrawal from the EU. The agreement, endorsed at EU leaders’ level back in November, would ensure an orderly UK withdrawal from the EU at the end of the Article 50 extension period. Alongside that agreement, the political declaration sets out the main parameters of the future EU-UK relationship, but this is no closer to finding approval in the UK Parliament. The statements on Brexit are followed on Wednesday afternoon with the penultimate debate in the series on the Future of Europe, this time with the Prime Minister of Sweden, Stefan Löfven.

On Wednesday evening, Parliament will debate a text agreed in trilogue on applying internal market rules to gas pipelines entering the EU from countries outside the EU. With ongoing controversy over the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, the tightened rules will ensure that, while the EU Member State on which such a pipeline arrives is responsible for the application of EU law, the Commission will have to authorise negotiations on such projects, must be kept informed of their progress and must authorise the signature of any such agreement.

Parliament will then decide whether to grant approval to a Multiannual plan for the fisheries exploiting demersal stocks in the western Mediterranean Sea, which aims to protect vulnerable stocks of fish and crustaceans living on the sea bottom from over-exploitation. The plan involves Italy, Spain and France cooperating to ensure that their fishing fleets’ activities are sustainable.

Later on Wednesday evening, Members will also vote on a proposal to curb the fraudulent use of EU citizens’ identity and residence documents, of which there are many different types in circulation. Parliament’s Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee wishes to strengthen the proposal so that all Member States recognise EU national identity cards, that there are clear rules on validity, and that only authorised staff may handle the biometric identifiers involved. The changes should make it harder for criminals and terrorists to use EU identity papers.

Following Council and Commission statements on EU-China trade relations, a joint debate will be held on Wednesday night on customs in the EU. The final file on the agenda on Wednesday is that of road infrastructure safety management, where proposals to improve safety have been made with the aim of reducing fatalities and serious injury on EU roads. Parliament will decide whether to formally adopt the text agreed with Council. On Thursday lunchtime, Members are expected to return to the transport-related files debated during the last plenary session, to vote on the proposals on rules for posted workers in the road transport sector and on working conditions for drivers.

On Thursday morning, Members will debate two files with a direct effect on EU citizens’ lives. The first is a provisional agreement on the proposal to create a pan-European personal pension product (PEPP) – a new framework for voluntary pension contributions aiming to tackle the shortfall in pension provision in our ageing society. The PEPPs are expected to offer greater choice in savings plans, including a switching service and a default option with a guaranteed return of at least the sums contributed. The file is also the subject of a vote on the tax treatment of pension products, scheduled for Thursday afternoon. The second proposal, on work-life balance for parents and carers is a proposal to redress the gender balance in the workplace. Introducing a right to two weeks paternity leave, while maintaining current maternity leave arrangements, the work-life balance package aims at permitting parents and carers the flexibility to care for their family by affording greater choice in who takes a break

The data economy is a top EU priority under the digital single market. On Thursday lunchtime, Members will vote on an agreement to improve access to valuable existing public sector information, such as land registries and statistics that can be used to help grow the economy, or develop artificial intelligence, and help administrations themselves to face the challenges of modern society. The four main changes proposed include making the data available in real time, making re-use of documents free of charge or at limited cost, preventing exclusive arrangements that favour commercial companies, and increasing the supply of high-value public data.

Introduction

Written by Silvia Polidori.

Over the last decade, public discourse has been moved, to a great extent, into virtual spaces. In the empire of social media, influencers and service providers employing algorithms have overtaken up the important role of shaping public opinion previously the domain of the classical (printed and electronic) media. In the current crisis of representative democracy, marked by the perception of a growing distance between the elite and the public, promoting public participation in the European policy-making process is more at stake than ever. Using social media as a new type of stakeholder dialogue and awareness-raising tool is crucial not only for fighting against disinformation, but also for achieving effective communication in support of evidence-based decision-making.

It is essential therefore to explore and understand the way viral content and influencers’ techniques work, and to bring scientists, policy-makers and media experts together for an in-depth discussion of the topic. In view of the forthcoming European elections, it is important to investigate how activism and key messages work online, how they motivate and attract people, and to assess their political impact. This is particularly important in the current European social and political context.

European Science-Media Hub (ESMH) Workshop

3 April 2019, European Parliament, Brussels

9.30-12.00 – Room P3C050

The workshop

A workshop organised by the European Parliament’s European Science-Media Hub (ESMH) will focus on the role of ‘influencers’ in using modern technologies to increase the number of their ‘followers’. It will look at how technologies can carry and amplify messages, becoming ‘viral’, and the type of communication used. The event will also explore the ‘eco-chamber effect’ in communication within modern societies.

Besides the technological aspects, the workshop will also employ social science considerations to deal with the psychological aspects of ‘viral media communication’ and its social impact, with particular attention paid to political influence, e.g. the ‘yellow-vest’ movement. The idea is to explore whether we can use a social media communication methodology, going beyond keywords and sentiment, and looking at the full social discourse, to understand the broad themes that attract and motivate people to join the conversation and gain insight into their behaviour.

The workshop will feature discussion between various experts in the fields of communication technologies and social sciences on the ‘science of virality’. It will also include communication practitioners involved in past electoral campaigns and social media representatives in a session on the ‘practice of virality’. The event will be moderated by a senior online communication expert.

Besides the workshop, the ESMH will also perform and compile interviews of the speakers as part of an ‘event report’ to be published on its website.

The event will take place on 3 April 2019, just fifty days before the next European elections. It therefore provides a very useful occasion to reflect, exchange and debate on the topic among Members of the Parliament and the other participants, especially on how the European message can be conveyed more effectively. In fact, ‘influencers’ and ‘viral content’ can also pose a threat, a challenge, as well as an opportunity to pass positive messages. The ESMH, in its role of a promoter of sound science communication, is ideally positioned to inform the Members of the Parliament and other related and interested actors about the topic.

The subject is also relevant in the framework of the current discussions on the role of new media in relation to big data, analytics and artificial intelligence (AI), such as those that took place in the context of the European Parliament resolution of 12 February 2019 on a comprehensive European industrial policy on artificial intelligence and robotics. It also bears on a number of recently published or ongoing STOA studies, especially those on algorithmic transparency and accountability, polarisation and the use of technology in political campaigns, and regulating disinformation with AI.

Follow the workshop online and join the debate via Twitter: #ViralityESMH

To keep up to date with this workshop and other STOA activities, follow our website, the EPRS blog, Twitter and Think Tank pages.

Written by Alessandro D’Alfonso and Wouter van Ballegooij (*),

The European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) hosted a discussion on ‘Migration and Borders: Roadmap for the future of Europe’, including a keynote address from Claude Moraes (S&D, United Kingdom, Chair of Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE)) on 19 March 2019.

Following a welcome by EPRS Director General, Anthony Teasdale, Claude Moraes identified migration as the critical issue for the upcoming elections and for the work of the soon-to-be-elected new European Parliament. In his speech, he called for a comprehensive European approach to asylum and migration, including stronger legal migration possibilities, but also stressed the difficulties that the European Parliament has faced in finding a common ground on this topic with the Council.

The lack of progress made on the ‘asylum package’, as well as on the reform of the EU blue card, is a particular issue for Claude Moraes; even a simple revision of this instrument, limited to high skilled migrants, was blocked by the Council because of Member States’ opposition to any measure featuring the word ‘migration’. This opposition stems from the negative connotations surrounding migration based on fear of migrants as a threat to national identity. Moraes highlighted that, to the contrary, the analyses presented in the Parliament’s studies on the cost of non-Europe in the area of asylum and legal migration shed light on the opportunities offered by further European integration and attracting labour migrants.

Claude Moraes (S&D, United Kingdom, Chair of Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE)

Concerning the long-term budgetary aspects of migration, Moraes noted that the proposal for the next multiannual financial framework (MFF) 2021-2027 included greater EU spending on this issue. However, he deplored the preference given to border management over support to asylum systems, legal migration and long-term integration policies. In its first-reading positions on the Asylum and Migration Fund, Internal Security Fund and Integrated Border Management Fund, Parliament had insisted on a balanced allocation of resources between these objectives to address the unwarranted focus on returns and security-related measures. Parliament has also ensured that the money will primarily be spent within the EU and not abroad, to help frontline Member States who deal with the majority of new arrivals into Europe.

During the Q&A session following the discussion, Claude Moraes was asked whether he was pessimistic about future developments in the migration domain and where one should draw the line in the debate between valid concerns and positions fed by racism and xenophobia. He responded by stating the need for a change in the narrative on migration, towards one highlighting its opportunities, while tackling the identity concerns, racism and xenophobia head-on.

The debate continued with a roundtable discussion moderated by Fabia Jones, which was based on the presentation of three studies analysing budgetary, legal and economic aspects of EU policies on migration and borders. Alessandro D’Alfonso presented his study on external border control and asylum management as EU common goods: A budgetary perspective, recently published by the European University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies. He explained that the removal of internal border controls across most of the EU has triggered the emergence of various EU common goods in the fields of borders, asylum and migration. The EU budget has an important role to play in the effective provision of such common goods, based on the Treaty of Lisbon, which sets the guiding principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility for these policy areas, including the financial implications, between the Member States. The presentation highlighted the institutional and budgetary challenges that led to a limited pooling of financial resources prior to the refugee crisis. Up to 2015, common expenditure on external borders, asylum and migration within the EU accounted for well below 1 % of the EU budget. The EU was obliged to resort to the flexibility tools of the MFF for the financing of measures designed to help tackle the refugee crisis inside the Union. Focusing on the proposals for the post-2020 MFF, Alessandro D’Alfonso highlighted elements that could increase the contribution of the EU budget to the application of the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility, such as higher resources, more flexibility and allocation parameters that take into account evolving needs.

The next speaker, Wouter van Ballegooij, focused on the cost of non-Europe in the area of migration and borders, based on a number of his publications stemming from a project requested by the LIBE Committee, notably in the area of asylum and legal migration. The main gaps in EU action and cooperation in the area of migration and borders relate to the lack of enforcement of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights and secondary EU legislation already adopted, and a lack of legal pathways for asylum seekers and certain labour migrants to enter the EU. This lack of enforcement contributes to the ongoing tragedy of loss of lives in the Mediterranean, among other fundamental rights violations. It also leads to inefficiencies in EU and national spending and lost tax revenue. A cost of non-Europe report on organised crime and corruption drawn up by EPRS estimated the cost of corruption to the European economy in terms of GDP as between €218 billion and €282 billion annually. The cost of remaining with the status quo in the area of asylum is estimated at approximately €48.3 billion annually (of which the estimated cost of lives lost is around €12 billion). Income losses for third-country nationals already within the EU at individual level, and lost tax revenue at societal (aggregate EU) level due to discrimination, are estimated at €29 billion annually. Furthermore, shortages in the EU labour market and the effects of demographic change are not addressed. In addition, the potential to boost innovation and growth remains untapped. Beyond the introduction of an EU pact for monitoring and enforcement of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, options for further EU action and cooperation in the spirit of solidarity and the fair sharing of responsibility are the introduction of an EU humanitarian visa scheme, and an immigration code covering all third-country nationals.

The final speaker, Lina Vosyliute, presented a study prepared for the Parliament on ‘The cost of non-Europe in the area of legal migration’, feeding into the relevant Cost of non-Europe report (see Annex I). Lina Vosyliute described the current state of play as a circle of ‘minimum harmonisation’ approach, since the EU Member States retain a certain leeway as to how to implement EU legislation governing migration. This results in a high degree of fragmentation and complexity in the EU, and a low use of EU schemes (e.g. the EU blue card for high-skilled workers), as national migration schemes are preferred by some countries, which in turn leads to the EU wide scheme having low perceived impact. Moreover, third-country nationals face a number of obstacles related to differential treatment of the different migratory groups as regards equal treatment, entry and re-entry conditions, work authorisation etc. These problems also result in income loss at individual level and lost tax revenue at the aggregate EU level. Vosyliute recommends the policy option of a legally binding immigration code as proposed by the European Commission in 2001 in line with international labour and human rights standards as a solution. However, while this would have key benefits and low cost, it is politically difficult to implement.

(*) With special thanks to Sophia Stutzmann, trainee with the EPRS Budgetary Policies Unit, for preparing a draft report of this event.

Click to view slideshow.

Written by Silvia Polidori,

An ecological and social approach to converting old-style industries in urban areas may well contribute to a new eco and social friendly development path for the European Union. This prospect was a prominent conclusion of the workshop on ‘Reconversion of industrial areas in the framework of regional policy‘, organised by the Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA) on 26 February 2019 at the European Parliament (EP), and proposed by Rosa D’Amato (EFDD, Italy), member of the EP Committee on Regional Development (REGI). Fifteen experts from twelve EU Member States, including five Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), representatives of other European institutions, universities and local authorities, attended to discuss the topic from various angles, highlighting the challenges and proposing solutions based on policy strategies, legislative proposals and specific case studies.

As explained in his welcome to the audience, Ramón Luis Valcárcel Siso (EPP, Spain), EP Vice-President responsible for STOA, highlighted that the impact of new technologies and the circular economy links to wider aspects of European development. In the 1950s, the coal and steel industry became the symbol of cooperation among those European countries that decided to pool their coal and steel resources. This served to guarantee peace among European peoples, and those industries represented a step towards European integration. Today, he argued, we need to change perspective and move on to a new phase of European development, based on industrial conversion towards more sustainable models. The main challenges in triggering industrial conversion are related to developing the architecture of old industrial areas in or close to towns into innovative and ecological zones, offering investment opportunities for small and medium enterprises (SMEs), involving the local population in the decisions affecting their towns, and managing the risks of demographic and employment losses during the process.

Gerald Muscat, Head of the Urban Development Division in the Projects Directorate of the EIB explained that the European Investment Bank (EIB) proposes dedicated partnerships in industrial conversion investment. These involve cities and regions, urban development agencies, urban remediation and regeneration funds, real estate developers and national promotional/municipal banks.

The European Commission also proposes a strategy for supporting industrial reconversion. Embedded in the ‘proposal for a regulation on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund (CF)’, published on 29 May 2018. As Sander Happaerts, Policy analyst in the Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy of the European Commission, mentioned, the new EU cohesion policy (2021-2027) is expected to focus on five policy objectives, including a Europe closer to citizens, with the support of locally-led development strategies and sustainable urban development. Industrial modernisation is one of the key investment priorities. There is also a shift towards investments that promote a low-carbon, circular economy, and help in the fight against climate change.

Bronis Ropė (Greens/EFA, Lithuania), member of the REGI Committee, emphasised the positive inputs provided by the report on the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund adopted by his committee on 14 February 2019 in the form of amendments to the Commission’s proposal. The REGI Committee confirmed its support for sustainable urban development and smart specialisation, and for a transition to ‘industry 4.0’. In the optimistic view of Gilles Pargneaux (S&D, France), Member of the EP Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI), Europe will win the challenge of industrial conversion, acknowledging that ‘it won’t be easy, but it will succeed’.

This positive approach is supported by specific cases of urban areas with an industrial past, already transformed into attractive locations for their inhabitants and for tourists. Bilbao, for example, has overcome a difficult past, dominated by natural and social turbulence, establishing itself as a liveable and inclusive city. Lille and its Haut-de-France Region well represent the third industrial revolution, privileging environmentally-friendly policies, based on a systemic approach. The Ruhr region, a symbol of the end of coal mining, and its Industrial Heritage Route with the Zollverein Word Heritage site is a tourist attraction reminiscent of, but far from, the heavy-industry historical age. The city of Gdansk, with its various districts, is also a good example of industrial reconversion, revitalising and reorganising social life through development of suitable infrastructures. L’Aquila, capital of the Abruzzo region in Italy, is undergoing a digital transformation, becoming one of the fifteen European Digital Cities and one of the five Italian cities with 5G. After the destruction of the 2009 earthquake, L’Aquila can be described as a living laboratory. The river city of Gothenburg also proposes a citizen-friendly vision for reconstruction of the harbour and industrial area on the riverbanks.

As Rosa D’Amato stressed in her concluding remarks, industrial conversion is already a reality all around Europe, but we need to go further. Paul Rübig (EPP, Austria), STOA First Vice-Chair, believes that the use of technologies can facilitate this transition, but policy-makers need to listen to the people, to ensure the process is smooth and successful. All in all, a lot is at stake for the next generation and for a sustainable society.

* All presentations of the workshop are available on the STOA website.

Click to view slideshow.

Written by Katarzyna Sochacka and Clare Ferguson,

© European Union 2019 – Source : EP

Highlights of the March II plenary session included debates on the conclusions of the 21-22 March 2019 European Council meeting and on recent developments on the Dieselgate scandal. Parliament also debated the situation in Algeria and the illegal occupation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Important debates also took place on various legislative proposals, including on interoperability between EU information systems. Members voted on a number of legislative proposals (see below), such as discontinuing seasonal changes of time. Parliament also voted on the report on the TAX3 committee’s findings and on 53 reports on the 2017 discharge procedure. Finally, Parliament adopted first-reading positions on nine further proposed funding programmes for the 2021-2027 period.

Report on financial crimes, tax evasion and tax avoidance (TAX3)

Members debated the report from 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 scandals highlighting the extent of the issue, the committee proposes greater scrutiny over Member States’ tax systems, including eliminating loopholes and greater recourse at national level against money-laundering activities.

Internal market for electricity

Members debated and approved compromise agreements on four proposals for new rules regarding the internal market for electricity. The proposed changes to the rules would give consumers stronger rights when dealing with electricity suppliers, and provide extra protection for vulnerable consumers.

Representative actions for the protection of collective interests of consumers

Parliament adopted, by a large majority, proposals to harmonise the EU rules on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers. 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. Only qualified representative entities would be authorised to mount such actions (rather than lawyers), and are required to disclose publicly how they are financed, organised and managed.

Copyright in the digital single market

Ending two years of negotiation, Members adopted a compromise agreement on copyright in the digital single market. This 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. The file now goes back to Council for final adoption.

Mediterranean fisheries management measures

Members voted to formally adopt an agreement on a Commission proposal to transpose recommendations from the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean into EU law. 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.

Road transport: Social and market rules

Members debated three sensitive files relating to overhauling current legislation on road transport. There was no vote on these files and once again, they were referred back to the Transport Committee for consideration. So far, the committee could only reach agreement on the cabotage file, which seeks to clarify the rules for international haulage operations, particularly on minimum turnaround times. Nevertheless, political groups tabled 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. Following a further round of voting in committee, the proposals are due to return for a plenary vote in the April I session.

Protecting workers against carcinogens and mutagens: Third proposal

Parliament voted by a large majority to formally adopt the latest 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. The five priority chemical agents include formaldehyde, cadmium and arsenic, and the measures seek to provide clarity in the workplace for workers and employers.

Reducing marine litter from plastics

Members debated and voted, by an overwhelming majority, on 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.

CE marked fertilising products

Members debated and approved 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 and extending legislation to cover organic or recycled waste alternatives.

Central counterparty recovery and resolution

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. Members adopted a position on the Commission proposals that central counterparty recovery and resolution include comprehensive stress-testing to avoid that central counterparties themselves become a systemic risk.

Framework to facilitate sustainable investment

Members debated and adopted a report on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment. A joint report from Parliament’s Economic Affairs and Environment Committees underlines that gradual harmonisation of what ‘environmentally sustainable’ actually means will help EU investors to ensure that their investments take account of their environmental impact.

Discharge 2017

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. Members conducted a joint debate and voted 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 proposed granting 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 recommended 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), for which discharge and closure of accounts was postponed.

Opening of trilogue negotiations

No decisions to enter into negotiations were announced.

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 defenders of media freedom in accession countries.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

© Terminator3d / Fotolia

Do you think you should be able to express your opinions without being censored? Do you care about who controls the media in our democracies? If you do, the EU institutions share your views. Freedom of speech is a core value of the European Union. Where the EU can act, it puts programmes to support media freedom in place.

One such programme is the annual Media Pluralism Monitor that surveys risks to media freedom and pluralism across the EU. Conducted by the Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom, it systematically, objectively and scientifically examines all factors that pose a risk to media freedom. These reports are freely accessible for use by citizens, scientists and policy-makers.

The European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF), funded by the European Parliament, launched a programme devoted to fighting media freedom violations and helping journalists under threat. It supports investigative reporters, with grants and workshops on a safe digital working environment. The Mapping Media Freedom programme, conducted by ECPMF, and managed by the Index on Censorship and European Federation of Journalists, maps media freedom threats across Europe and tackles them through awareness campaigns, policy recommendations and training.

Viewers can get more than just a national perspective through independent news production, covering EU affairs from a pan-European point of view. An EU programme supports the European Data News Hub and the European Data Journalism Network, which serve as a data and information hub, providing accurate data-driven news.

Further information

• Website of the Media Pluralism Monitor at the Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom, http://cmpf.eui.eu/media-pluralism-monitor/
• European Commission’s website on media freedom projects, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/media-freedom-projects
• Mapping Media Freedom programme, https://mappingmediafreedom.org/#/

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© anyaberkut / Fotolia

Innovation in the economy is a priority for the European Union, vital to its competitiveness in the global economy, and for growth and jobs. The EU is implementing a number of policies and programmes that support innovation to increase investment in research and development, and to better convert research into improved goods and services. Yet, according to many analysts, despite the roll-out of numerous pro-innovation initiatives, the EU is still lagging behind the United States and China both on innovation and in relation to the related digitalisation process.

This note offers links to recent commentaries, studies and reports from major international think tanks on innovation in the EU and related issues. More papers on innovation, notably on the digital economy, can be found in a previous item in this series published in July 2018

Impulses for European democracy and initiatives for the digital future: Annual report
Bertelsmann Stiftung, March 2019

Standing up for competition: Market concentration, regulation, and Europe’s quest for a new industrial policy
European Centre for International Political Economy, March 2019

Innovation en santé: Soignons nos talents
Institut Montaigne, March 2019

En route pour la sino-mondialisation
Institut des relations internationales et stratégiques, March 2019

Artificial Intelligence: Ethics, governance and policy challenges
Centre for European Policy Studies, February 2019

AI tool builders and their users: What should we expect from the tools and who is responsible when they fail?
German Marshall Fund, February 2019

Contribution to growth: The European Digital Single Market
Bruegel, February 2019

Construire la souveraineté numérique de l’Europe
Confrontations Europe, February 2019

European innovation partnerships: How successful have they been in promoting innovation in the EU?
Wiener Institut für Internationale Wirtschaftsvergleiche, January 2019

Science, technology and innovation diplomacy: A way forward for Europe
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, January 2019

Innovate Europe: Competing for global innovation leadership
World Economic Forum, January 2019

Big data analytics need standards to thrive: What standards are and why they matter
Centre for International Governance Innovation, January 2019

How will Artificial Intelligence change the character of war?
Beyond the Horizon, January 2019

Keeping up with innovation: Designing a European sandbox for fintech
Centre for European Policy Studies, January 2019

Vertical restraints and e-commerce
Bruegel, January 2019

How Europe could yet take the lead in the global electric-vehicle development race
Bruegel, January 2019

Four internets: The geopolitics of digital governance
Centre for International Governance Innovation, December 2018

Eco-innovation: drivers, barriers and effects: A European perspective
Wiener Institut für Internationale Wirtschaftsvergleiche, December 2018

Transformation numérique de l’industrie: L’enjeu franco-allemand
Institut français des relations internationales, December 2018

Ethics and artificial intelligence
Bruegel, December 2018

Digital Europe: Next steps, – European agenda for the Digital-9+
Lisbon Council, November 2018

In pursuit of autonomy: AI and national strategies
Observer Institute Foundation, November 2018

Harnessing digital tools to revitalize European democracy
Carnegie Europe, November 2018

China’s embrace of AI: Enthusiasm and challenges
European Council on Foreign Relations, November 2018

The next steps for the digital single market: From where do we start?
European Centre for International Political Economy, October 2018

Wie future skills die Personalarbeit verändern
Stifterverband für die Deutsche Wissenschaft, October 2018

Online platforms, economic integration and Europe’s rent-seeking society: Why online platforms deliver on what EU governments fail to achieve
European Centre for International Political Economy, October 2018

Responsible, safe and secure AI
Lisbon Council, October 2018

Cyber finance challenges demand a unified response
Centre for European Policy Studies, October 2018

Delivering the goods: E-commerce logistics transformation
World Economic Forum, October 2018

Do data policy restrictions impact the productivity performance of firms and industries?
European Centre for International Political Economy, October 2018

The European answer to the digital revolution: How to ensure Europe’s competitive advantage?
Notre Europe, September 2018

Building a forward-looking EU policy strategy on blockchain
College of Europe, September 2018

The future of work: Robots cooking free lunches?
Wilfired Martens Centre, September 2018

Artificial intelligence and political science
OCP Policy Center, September 2018

Europe’s payments revolution
Centre for European Policy Studies, September 2018

Skills, entrepreneurship and new business models: Ways to rejuvenate the German industrial model
Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft Köln, August 2018

The impact of artificial intelligence on employment
Bruegel, July 2018

Artificial intelligence: A game-changer for the world of work
European Trade Union Institute, June 2018

Online platforms and how to regulate them: An EU overview
Jacques Delors Institute, Berlin, Bertelsmann Stiftung, June 2018

Artificial Intelligence and international affairs: Disruption anticipated
Chatham House, June 2018

‘TECHNOPOLY’ and what to do about it: Reform, redress and regulation
ResPublica, June 2018

Read this briefing on ‘Innovation in Europe‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Naja Bentzen,

Trust and truth have been two sides of the same coin since the late Neolithic/early Bronze Age. The words trust and truth originate from the same linguistic root: proto-indo-European –deru, meaning something firm, solid and steadfast – like wood. Today, several thousands of years later, we are seeing a new wave of pressure on facts and information, which are being manipulated for ideological and/or economic purposes, while emotions often trump evidence. The ongoing a crisis of facts, expertise and trust is a challenge for media, institutions and experts.

Some use the notion of post-truth – the Oxford Dictionaries choice as 2016 word of the year – while RAND experts use the idea of ‘truth decay’ to capture four related trends: growing disagreement about facts; blurred lines between opinion and fact; increasing influence of opinion and feeling over fact; and declining trust in traditionally respected sources of factual information. Some argue that we should call this development anti-enlightenment, to highlight that the development is pushed by groups of players who benefit from it: some state- and non-state actors strategically try to undermine our open democracies, while commercial players – big online platforms – monetise and instrumentalise our online behaviour and the personal data they collect.

Against this backdrop, the EPRS – whose explicit aim it is to empower through knowledge, and therefore has an obvious interest in countering pressure on facts and expertise – organised a Library discussion on 20 March. On the brink of Brexit and 60 days before the European elections, this event focused on questions on truth, trust and democracy that concern not only policy-makers, knowledge providers (including the EPRS and the wider expert community) and news media – but all voters in Europe and beyond.

Following a welcome by EPRS Director General, Anthony Teasdale, and a keynote speech from Ramón Luis Valcárcel Siso (European Parliament Vice-President responsible for the EPRS), we were privileged to welcome Shoshana Zuboff, Professor Emerita, Harvard Business School and author of ‘The age of surveillance capitalism‘ (2019) – who joined us via Skype from the USA – as well as Dr William Davies (Goldsmiths, University of London), author of ‘Nervous states – How feeling took over the world‘ (2018). Charles de Marcilly, Adviser at the European Political Strategy Centre also joined the discussion, which was moderated by Etienne Bassot (Director, Members’ Research Service), with Naja Bentzen as discussant.

Against the backdrop of the increasing pressure on our information space – including disinformation campaigns by state and non-state actors and the ‘dictatorship of algorithms’, which dictates the level of our knowledge, Ramón Luis Valcárcel Siso called for the selection process for information to be transparent and for people to maintain a critical spirit towards the information they receive.

Europe is our hope, our vanguard

Shoshana Zuboff – who has been called one of the 11 most influential business thinkers – condensed her expertise and research in a memorable speech, in which she warned that ‘surveillance capitalism’ – big tech companies that mine and monetise our data – use our actions and behaviour as raw material for behavioural data. She highlighted that surveillance capitalism represents a model of asymmetric knowledge and a social inequality of knowledge: the companies know everything about us, but we have no insight into what they are doing. Against this backdrop, the question ‘is knowledge power?’ has never been more potent, nor more dangerous, Shuboff noted. Shuboff concluded by underlining that the EU is ‘our vanguard’: our responses to the threats of surveillance capitalism – including our anti-trust rules – have significant impact beyond Europe. On the same day, EU Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, in charge of competition policy, fined Google €1.49 billion (1.29% of Google’s turnover in 2018) for breaching EU anti-trust rules.

The challenge of communicating in a post-truth era

Dr Will Davies

Building on Shoshana Zuboff’s speech, Will Davies drew on his 2018 book ‘Nervous States: How Feeling took over the world‘ to identify some of the main drivers that are undermining objectivity and expertise in democracies today. Whereas facts have allowed strangers to believe each other regardless of predisposed beliefs and opinion, he said, in a post-truth society this is increasingly difficult. Looking at loss of trust in traditional centres of expert knowledge and professional judgement, Davies asserted that this has a much longer, deeper history than the focus on the last few years, but that it has been radicalised by the economic and technological upheavals of the past decade.

The EU’s response

Charles De Marcilly explained how the EU is gearing up to protect the upcoming European Parliament election in May 2019. A new EU rapid alert system to share real-time warnings, react and ensure coordination between EU capitals and Brussels has been active since March 2019. Spearheaded by the EU, the first-ever global industry Code of Practice, setting out self-regulatory standards to fight disinformation and increase transparency was agreed last September. This voluntary mechanism is a first step in shaping global norms to fight online disinformation. In addition, the EU has set up an independent European network of fact-checkers to establish common working methods, exchange best practices, achieve the broadest possible coverage across the EU, and participate in joint fact-checking and related activities. These different measures can be seen as a step towards greater resilience.

Is knowledge still power? Yes, but …

The discussion showed us that the knowledge-power-nexus is constantly evolving. The phrase ‘knowledge is power’ can mean very different things: In authoritarian systems it means controlling access to information, often violating freedom of expression, which also includes the freedom to form opinions. For surveillance capitalism, knowledge is instrumentarian power, meaning controlling access to our data, monetising our public debate to not only shape our ability to form opinions, but even modifying our behaviour and purposely breeding ignorance.

In an open, peaceful democracy, knowledge shared is power multiplied. In order to make informed, democratic choices, we need to be able to base our opinions on facts, rather than create ‘alternative facts’ that match our opinions. At the EPRS we are already working to share knowledge beyond our bubble. Thereby, we are already contributing to bridging the trust gap between informed elites and the mass population, as the Edelman Trust Barometer 2019 showed. However, as our discussion illustrated, if we want to maintain shared realities, where we can trust each other, much more needs to be done. The EU’s final (= post-election) response to the behaviour of online platforms and the results of Code of Practice agreed ahead of the European elections will have an impact beyond the EU and may even set a new global standard.

Meanwhile, one major question remains: How do we reclaim the public space for debate, both political and social? How do take back the monetised information space? And where is the neutral, non-commercial space where we can have the necessary public debate on these questions?

Written by Maria Niestadt,

© metamorworks / Fotolia

Artificial intelligence is changing the transport sector. From helping cars, trains, ships and aeroplanes to function autonomously, to making traffic flows smoother, it is already applied in numerous transport fields. Beyond making our lives easier, it can help to make all transport modes safer, cleaner, smarter and more efficient. Artificial intelligence-led autonomous transport could for instance help to reduce the human errors that are involved in many traffic accidents. However, with these opportunities come real challenges, including unintended consequences and misuse such as cyber-attacks and biased decisions about transport. There are also ramifications for employment, and ethical questions regarding liability for the decisions taken by artificial intelligence in the place of humans.

The EU is taking steps to adapt its regulatory framework to these developments, so that it supports innovation while at the same time ensuring respect for fundamental values and rights. The measures already taken include general strategies on artificial intelligence and rules that support the technologies enabling the application of artificial intelligence in transport. In addition, the EU provides financial support, in particular for research.

Read this briefing on ‘Artificial intelligence in transport: Current and future developments, opportunities and challenges‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

The European Parliament regularly receives enquiries from citizens asking what the European Union (EU) is doing about climate change.

The European Union – a world leader on climate action

© josephsjacobs / Fotolia

A 2050 low carbon objective, adopted by the European Council in 2009, seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 to 95 % by 2050, compared with 1990 levels, as part of a global effort to limit temperature increases to below 2°C. In addition, a 2030 climate and energy framework, adopted by the European Council in 2014, sets three targets to be met by 2030:

• at least 40 % cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, compared with 1990 levels;
• a minimum 27 % share for renewables in the energy mix;
• and an improvement in energy efficiency of at least 27 %.

Mind the gap

Meanwhile, the 2015 Paris Agreement aims to keep the global temperature rise well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C. Today, global temperature is 0.9°C above pre-industrial levels. A 2018 report by the intergovernmental panel on climate change highlighted the need for urgent action to meet these goals, while a 2018 UN Environment emissions gap report indicated that current national efforts worldwide would lead to an estimated 3.2°C warming by 2100.

In 2018, the European Commission published a 2050 long-term strategy presenting eight scenarios for a transition to a low-carbon economy, in line with the Paris Agreement objective.

In a resolution of 14 March 2019, the European Parliament called for net-zero global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, an enhancement of national efforts worldwide by 2020 and a more ambitious EU target of a 55 % emission reduction by 2030.

What the EU can do

Under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, EU environmental policy aims at providing ‘a high level of protection’.

The European Union is competent to act in most areas of environment and climate policy, although its powers are rather limited on certain topics (such as tax, land use and energy mix). The main responsibility for implementation lies with EU countries, and in some cases with regional and local authorities.

What the EU has been doing

As regards funding, 20 % of the EU budget is to be spent on climate-related objectives. This share is expected to rise in the future.

As regards climate change mitigation, most of the EU regulatory framework up to 2030 was set in 2018-2019. Parliament and Council have adopted new rules and 2030 emission targets for specific sectors, strengthening and extending previous targets. For example:

• emissions from energy and industry covered under the EU emissions trading system (ETS) must be reduced by 43 % by 2030;
• emissions from transport, buildings and agriculture must be reduced by 30 % by 2030;
• new CO2 standards for trucks and buses and for cars and vans are being set.

As regards climate change adaptation, EU policy is defined in a 2013 adaptation strategy, designed to encourage EU countries to adopt comprehensive policies; to promote adaptation in key vulnerable sectors (such as agriculture, fisheries and cohesion policy); and to develop knowledge about adaptation to enable better informed decision-making. In 2018, 25 EU countries had developed a national adaptation strategy.

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

Further information

• The EU, a world leader in fighting climate change, European Parliamentary Research Service, 2018.
• The EU spending on fight against climate change, Policy Department on Budgetary Affairs, Directorate General for Internal Policies of the Union, 2018.

Written by Zsolt G. Pataki with Riccardo Molinari,

To promote the role of science in ensuring a sound basis for public policies and political decisions, the European Parliament’s Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA) organised ‘Science Week at the European Parliament’, between 5-7 February 2019, in cooperation with the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC), and the European Research Council (ERC). The week of scientific events encompassed the ‘Brussels Week’ of STOA’s MEP-Scientist Pairing Scheme, the JRC’s ‘Science meets Parliaments’ event, a European Science-Media Hub (ESMH) workshop on ‘Tackling misinformation and disinformation in science’, and a STOA/ESMH-ERC Conference entitled ‘Investing in researchers, shaping Europe’s future’. The aim of these events was to strengthen the structured dialogue between scientists and policy-makers, to raise awareness about politically relevant, cutting-edge scientific issues and the importance of science for evidence-informed policy-making.

STOA and the JRC jointly launched the ‘Science meets Parliaments’ initiative in 2015 at the European Parliament (EP). This year’s event marked the official opening of the EU pilot project ‘Science meets Parliaments/Science meets Regions‘. The event discussed how science could play a bigger role in 21st century policy-making and a number of other topics, ranging from how artificial intelligence may influence our lives to building resilient societies and engaging citizens in decision-making. An accompanying exhibition focused on migration, resilience, mobility, fairness and digital transformation.

A high-level session moderated by Vladimír Šucha, Director-General of the JRC, featured statements by representatives of major stakeholders, including Tibor Navracsics, Commissioner for Education, Culture, Youth and Sport; Jerzy Buzek, Chair of the ITRE Committee; Mady DELVAUX, EP rapporteur on ‘Civil rules on robotics’, Ashley FOX, EP rapporteur on a ‘Comprehensive European industrial policy on artificial intelligence and robotics’, and Paul RÜBIG, STOA First Vice-chair.

During this ‘Science Week’, 13 paired scientists in the framework of the MEP-Scientist Pairing Scheme had an opportunity to follow their MEP counterparts in their daily political activities, and gain an understanding of the EU science, technology and research policy framework, including, in particular, EP work in this area. The feedback from participating scientists and Members suggests that the Pairing Scheme was very well received, and that all participants would recommend the scheme to their colleagues. Members gained an insight into specific areas of scientific research and developed their understanding of how scientists might support policy-making. In fact, regular editions of the scheme increase its impact as more Members and scientists are offered the opportunity to participate in the pairing experience. Several participants stressed the value of the scheme and how it has helped them gain insights into increasingly important areas both in the European Union and globally.

In parallel, the European Science-Media Hub (ESMH) workshop on ‘Tackling misinformation and disinformation in science’ provided for an exchange of good practices in tackling misinformation and disinformation in science, via the presentation of case studies, illustrating relevant initiatives touching upon different science disciplines.

The conference entitled ‘Investing in researchers – Shaping Europe’s future’ brought policy-makers and ERC-funded grantees together, with the aim of supporting evidence-informed policy-making and underlining how Europe’s future can be shaped by fundamental research on topics ranging from smart agriculture and food, via CRISPR, to migration and demography.

Written by Lieve Van Woensel,

© SunnySideUp / Shutterstock.com

What if new-born babies were given a DNA report card that predicted their intelligence, their odds of getting a PhD, their chances of becoming a chain smoker or suffering depression, a heart attack or cancer? Thanks to ongoing genetic studies, a large amount of genetic data is available today involving millions of people. The wealth of information available to researchers allows them to create a polygenic risk score based on the DNA test of a person. This can be used to predict a person’s chances of getting a disease, his or her traits and behaviour, and many other things about their future. Are these predictions flawless? Who would benefit from them? What are their implications for a person’s life in general?

A single gene goes wrong. This results in diseases like sickle cell anaemia or BRCA breast cancer. With a few exceptions, genetic tests used by doctors today can already detect these rare, deadly variants in a single gene that lead to such uncommon forms of disease. However, most of the ‘big killers’, such as heart disease, are not caused by mutations in a single gene. These are rather a more complex case of hundreds or more changes in the genetic makeup that collectively influence the outcome. Tests for this type of changes are now possible, however, and produce what is referred to as a polygenic risk score.

Welcome to the world of polygenic risk scores: which promise to ‘unlock your future for less than €50’ upon submission of an uploaded DNA swab. Polygenic scores, as the name suggests, involve thousands of genes. A genome is a complete set of genetic instructions in an organism that contains all of the information needed to build that organism and for it to develop and function. These polygenic scores are derived from the combination of all the variants in a person’s inherited genome, and can spot risks of killer diseases, including those not manifested in either parent’s family history. Access to information from polygenic risk scores for different diseases provide insights that plot genetic architecture against a wide range of outcomes, behaviours and traits. This enables the prediction of risk factors, such as smoking or high cholesterol.

However, such genetic marker-based scores are not diagnoses, instead they offer a spectrum of probabilities from low to very high risk, and the scientific validity of these risk scores is up for debate. The accuracy of a polygenic risk score for an individual depends on how closely that person’s DNA resembles the DNA of the people whose genomic data was used to develop the score.

Possible impacts and developments

The availability of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests online and the possibility of using a polygenic risk score to discover the genetic roots of common ailments, not only open new options for public health care, but also transform the way we access personal genetic data and make informed decisions. However, are consumers of these DTC genetic tests fully aware of the impact the outcomes can have on their lives? Moreover, these predictions could be widely misinterpreted or abused. An individual’s genetic profile is, above all, a private matter, leading to questions as to whether such personal data can be protected. Another issue is that individuals have the right not to (want to) know what the future holds, for instance about diseases they cannot prevent. To interpret outcomes from genetic tests, medical framing is strongly recommended. It is therefore questionable, why an individual would choose to receive possibly unsettling medical information without medical guidance. With guidance from a medical professional, genetic testing data could be used proactively to make personal health decisions, concerning interventions such as screening, chemoprevention (using medication to prevent cancer in healthy people), or risk-reducing surgery for people with a high risk score for colorectal cancer.

There has been a boom in companies – Helix, 23andMe, Ancestry, Myriad Genetics, UK Biobank and Broad Institute, for example –collecting consumers’ DNA data to create genetic profiles. The risk scores obtained could drive the market of wearable devices and trackers, such as heart monitors. Users who download their genetic profile created by such commercial operators can then upload their genetic information to public family history (genealogy) sites and connect with other people of the same lineage. Indeed, one such public genealogy site helped police to crack a cold case. While, with the growing number of people enrolled for DNA tests, the accuracy of predictions is improving, it is obvious that sharing DNA on commercial databases could endanger individual’s privacy, and place sensitive information in the hands of a few companies.

Furthermore, like other data-driven technologies, genetic testing data is mostly available for certain racial/ethnic groups, raising concerns about the reliability of the predictions for other populations. This also presents an opportunity to expand the database to include the non-dominant population. A recent study shows that with the amount of DNA information housed in digital stores, more than 60 % of Americans with European ancestry can be identified through their DNA using an open genetic genealogy directory, regardless of whether they have acquired their polygenic score or not. This raises privacy concerns. The rapid expansion of these digital genetic directories makes it possible to trace any individual through their unsecured DNA. Unless the practice of conducting genealogy searches is properly regulated, anybody could experience genetic surveillance. Are individuals protected against potential abuse of such DTC genetic tests, for instance by insurance companies? Insurance companies with access to the polygenic scores could use them to decide not to offer insurance cover or to charge them exorbitant rates to people at a higher risk of disease.

These DNA tests can also be used to predict measurable human traits, including human behaviour. This will lead to predictions about the chances of a person committing crime, or about an individual’s IQ. Until a recently, no gene variant had ever been directly linked to IQ. The recent development linking 206 genetic variants to IQ has, however, resulted in a rapid genetic exploration. Psychologist Robert Plomlin talks about the possibility that human genome data will predict IQ in his book, ‘Blueprint‘. What if parents and educators used such predictions to determine the academic potential of their children? The polygenic scores could be used to customise education to each child’s needs, as not all children respond in the same way to teaching practices. These scores, which could predict the pattern of strengths and weaknesses in each child, could aid educators in designing different teaching practices for different children. The possibility of this technology to predict educational attainment has spurred many companies to invest in research on the genetics of educational attainment. In vitro fertilisation (IVF) clinics already permit a pre-implantation screening to detect embryos with rare genetic diseases before selecting the cells to be implanted. What if these were combined with IQ predictions and used to genetically select super-smart babies?

This technology has also found a potential market in applications such as predicting the age at which Alzheimer’s could appear, or the time of an individual’s death. With the rise of new technologies such as DNA storage and genome editing, it is not far-fetched to predict that future forecasts based on polygenic scores are here to stay. Is genome prediction a breakthrough in medicine and disease prevention or a dystopia in the making?

Anticipatory policy-making

The growing popularity and the availability of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing raises concerns, for instance, about how individuals are warned of the implications of such tests.

A study on legislation of DTC genetic testing in Europe gives a general overview of the national legislation addressing genetic testing in Europe. It argues that the applicability of relevant legislation is complicated by the fact that DTC genetic testing is provided outside the traditional healthcare system. This makes the classification of DTC genetic testing as a medical or recreational product unclear. These genetic tests are sold online, further raising concerns on jurisdiction and enforcement.

Read the complete ‘at a glance’ note on ‘What if a simple DNA test could predict your future?‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

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 drone users.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

© Ingo Bartussek / Fotolia

Have you ever bought or been offered a drone, and wondered what you are allowed to do with it? Maybe you have already taken photos with your drone or tried to lift things up into the air. Or maybe your neighbours thinks you are spying on them…

Various European countries have regulated the use of drones. However, the rules differ from country to country and are not easy to follow. The European Union has helped drone users to navigate this vast mass of information, by co-funding the creation of a website on drone rules.

Providing information does not eliminate all obstacles to the creation of a truly open market for drones however. Drones can pose a risk to safety, security and privacy regardless of the country in which they are being flown. They can also be flown across national borders. That is why the EU has been working on common rules on the civil use of drones. These rules will be adopted step by step, starting from general principles and moving towards more detailed rules. The rules will take into account the risk caused by various drone uses and will include requirements such as the obligation for people flying heavier drones to register, or restrictions on flying drones in certain zones defined by each country.

Not all rules are written in drone-specific laws. For instance, if your drone is equipped with a camera or a video recorder, and you capture personal data, EU data protection rules could apply. These rules say that you are not allowed to take photographs, videos or sound recordings of people without their permission.

Further information

• Unmanned aircraft (drones), European Commission website, https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/uas_en
• New civil aviation safety rules, EPRS briefing, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_BRI%282017%29595877
• Civil drones in the European Union, EPRS briefing, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_BRI(2015)571305

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)