European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

Written by Marcin Grajewski.

Uncertainty is growing over the recovery of the European economy from the recession generated by the Covid-19 pandemic. The European Commission has painted an optimistic growth scenario in its most recent forecast, with the economy expected to expand by 5 per cent and 4.3 per cent in 2021 and 2022 respectively. However, an increasing number of analysts see the potential for growth dampened by new restrictions in the run-up to Christmas this year given a fourth/fifth wave of the pandemic currently gripping Europe, compounded by the discovery of a new variant of the coronavirus. Higher inflation, partly resulting from high energy prices and disrupted supply chains, is also seen as a threat to the economy of the euro area and the wider EU, as are high public debt levels in many countries.

This note gathers links to recent publications and commentaries from many international think tanks on the state of the European economy and on debates on how to reform it.

How robust is the EU recovery?
Centre for European Policy Studies, November 2021

A transatlantic divide? Transitory inflation in Europe but persistent in the US
Centre for European Policy Studies, November 2021

Rethinking EU economic governance: The Stability and Growth Pact
European Policy Centre, November 2021

Why the EU’s recovery fund should be permanent
Centre for European Reform, November 2021

Instruments of a strategic foreign economic policy
Bruegel, Kiel Institute for the World Economy, DIW Berlin, November 2021

Including home-ownership costs in the inflation indicator is not just a technical issue
Bruegel, November 2021

Fiscal arithmetic and risk of sovereign insolvency
Bruegel, November 2021

Next Generation EU borrowing: A first assessment
Bruegel, November 2021

The new euro area inflation indicator and target: The right reset?
Bruegel, November 2021

Does money growth tell us anything about inflation?
Bruegel, November 2021

Growth and inflation after the pandemic in the EU
Bruegel, November 2021

Is the risk of stagflation real?
Bruegel, November 2021

Covid-19 financial aid and productivity: Has support been well spent?
Bruegel, November 2021

Zu den Verteilungseffekten der derzeit hohen Inflationsraten
Ifo Berlin, November 2021

Rethinking EU economic governance: The Stability and Growth Pact
European Policy Centre, November 2021

How can the CMU and Banking Union contribute to European sovereignty and economic recovery?
Confrontations Europe, November 2021

Reinventing the European banking sector
Institut Montaigne, November 2021

Supply chain disruptions: The risks and consequences
Rand Corporation, November 2021

How Germany’s coalition negotiations could change the EU’s political landscape
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, November 2021

Keynesian supply shocks and Hayekian secondary deflations
Ludwig von Mises Institute, November 2021

Don’t let up: The EU needs to maintain high standards for its banking sector as the European economy emerges from the Covid-19 pandemic
Bruegel, October 2021

Germany’s post-pandemic current account surplus
Bruegel, October 2021

The European energy price spike: Overcoming the fossil fuel crisis
Jacques Delors Institute, October 2021

Why have Europe’s energy prices spiked and what can the EU do about them?
Centre for European Reform, October 2021

Rising energy prices: What European solutions?
Fondation Robert Schuman, October 2021

The consequences of ‘modern monetary theory’
Confrontations Europe, October 2021

Purchasing power suffers from inflation such as ketchup and toothpaste
Itinera, October 2021

Inflation in the euro area: Factors mostly have only a temporary effect, but risk of prolonged elevated inflation remains
DIW, October 2021

The effects of natural disasters on price stability in the euro area
DIW, October 2021

Fiscal rules in a post-Covid brave new world: No need to sprint
Centre for European Policy Studies, October 2021

Climate action and Europe’s fiscal debate: Politics and possibilities
E3G, October 2021

Joint Economic Forecast Autumn 2021: Crisis is gradually being overcome – align action with lower growth
Ifo, September 2021

Ifo Economic Forecast Autumn 2021: Supply bottlenecks in manufacturing slow overall economic recovery
Ifo, September 2021

Monetary arithmetic and inflation risk
Bruegel, September 2021

Remote work, EU labour markets and wage inequality
Bruegel, September 2021

The pandemic’s uncertain impact on productivity
Bruegel, September 2021

Brexit and European finance: Prolonged limbo
Bruegel, September 2021

Can climate change be tackled without ditching economic growth?
Bruegel, September 2021

Euroraum im Herbst 2021
Institut für Weltwirtschaft Kiel, September 2021

Arbeitsintensive Unternehmen sind ein Katalysator für Geldpolitik und ihre Verteilungseffekte
DIW, September 2021

A revised European Semester under centralised management: The risk of overlooking social policy
Egmont, September 2021

EU employment dynamics: The pandemic years and beyond
European Trade Union Institute, September 2021

Options for inclusive post-pandemic labour markets
Migration Policy Institute, September 2021

The rising cost of housing
Centre for European Policy Studies, July 2021

Europe shouldn’t worry about inflation
Centre for European Reform, July 2021

Will European Union recovery spending be enough to fill digital investment gaps?
Bruegel, July 2021

Recovery and resilience: A first assessment
Lisbon Council, July 2021

Reforming the European Stability Mechanism: Too much but never enough
Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies, July 2021

How can a reform of the Stability and Growth Pact foster sound fiscal policies?
Centre for European Policy, June 2021

Read this briefing on ‘Prospects for EU economic recovery‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Nora Hahnkamper-Vandenbulcke and Stefano Vettorazzi.

This briefing is intended as a background overview for parliamentary committees (and their respective secretariats) planning their activities in relation to the European Commission work programme for 2022, adopted on 19 October 2021.

Since March 2020, the European Union – and the world – has been significantly affected by the outbreak of the Covid‑19 pandemic. To reinforce public health sectors and mitigate the socio-economic impact of the pandemic, the European Union has adopted a wide range of measures in areas such as health, economy, research, borders and mobility. Moreover, under the Union’s long-term budget for 2021‑2027 and the Next Generation EU instrument, including the Recovery and Resilience Facility, €2 018 trillion has been mobilised to support the recovery.

In the past two years, the Covid‑19 pandemic has had a considerable impact on the Commission’s work programmes. While the original 2020 work programme was published in October 2019, due to the pandemic, the Commission presented an adjusted 2020 programme in May 2020, focusing on protecting the lives and livelihoods of EU citizens. According to the 2021 work programme, more than 800 previously unplanned measures were thus taken in the first months of the pandemic. While the 2021 programme also included action to mitigate the impact of the pandemic, it announced a shift from strategy to delivery, with the aim of delivering on the Commission’s six headline ambitions to accelerate the transition towards a fairer, healthier, greener and more digital society.

The Commission’s 2022 work programme, entitled ‘Making Europe stronger together’, perpetuates the 2021 programme’s twofold ambition (i.e. to recover from the pandemic and to boost the Commission’s transformative agenda). However, in line with its title, special emphasis is placed on helping the Union emerge stronger and more resilient. This should be achieved by implementing the measures agreed over the last year, as well as through additional investment and reform to ‘accelerate the twin green and digital transitions, and build a fairer, more resilient and more cohesive society’. In its 2022 programme, the Commission also wishes to pay particular attention to the younger generation, proposing a ‘European Year of Youth 2022’ and presenting a youth action plan in European Union external action.

Annexes I and II of the 2022 work programme set out 68 legislative and non-legislative initiatives to be presented by the Commission in 2022. Even if the number of legislative initiatives (45) – which are the focus of this briefing – is lower by far than the 82 legislative initiatives envisaged under the 2021 programme, it nevertheless outnumbers the 37 initiatives planned under the original 2020 programme.

Written by Nikolina Šajn (1st edition).

On 23 September 2021, the European Commission adopted a legislative proposal to amend the 2014 Radio Equipment Directive, as a first step towards mandating a common charger for mobile phones and other small portable devices. Under the proposal, these devices would have to be equipped with a USB Type-C receptacle that can be charged with cables compatible with USB Type‑C, and to incorporate the USB Power Delivery communication protocol. The proposal would go hand in hand with an initiative on the eco-design of external power supplies, so that the receptacle and the communication protocol for both ends of charger cables would be harmonised.

The European Parliament has long been in favour of harmonising chargers for mobile phones and other small portable devices, and has in recent years called on the Commission to act urgently. Associations representing consumers have welcomed the Commission proposal and called for the final act to also include wireless charging, while organisations representing businesses are more likely to favour a voluntary approach, warning that harmonisation would stifle innovation.

Versions

• November 2021: A common charger for electronic devices: Revision of the Radio Equipment Directive (1st edition)

Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2014/53/EU on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of radio equipment Committee responsible:Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO)COM(2021) 547
23.9.2021Rapporteur:Alex Agius Saliba (S&D, Malta)2021/0291(COD)Shadow rapporteurs:Andrey Kovatchev (EPP, Bulgaria)
Liesje Schreinemacher (Renew, The Netherlands)
Anna Cavazzini (Greens/EFA, Germany)
Marco Campomenosi (ID, Italy)
Evžen Tošenovský (ECR, Czechia)
Kateřina Konečná (The Left, Czechia)Ordinary legislative procedure (COD)
(Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Publication of draft report

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

The European Parliament has recently received a large number of messages which express concern at a Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2019 between the Egyptian government and Euroclear, a financial services company. Citizens first began to write to the European Parliament on this subject in November 2021, often also addressing their complaints to Euroclear. The messages criticised the planned settlement agreement as violating the Egyptian constitution.

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

Main points made in the reply in English

We understand that you are referring to a Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2019 between the Egyptian government and Euroclear Bank, intended to facilitate international investment in Egyptian domestic debt instruments.

We would like to draw your attention to the fact that, despite its name, Euroclear is a Belgium-based financial services company and not an institution of the European Union.

According to European Union (EU) law, the European Parliament is not authorised to intervene in matters that are the responsibility of national authorities of EU countries or of non-EU countries, such as Egypt. For these reasons, please understand that we are not in a position to provide further assistance on this matter.

Written by Elena Lazarou.

On 15 November 2021, High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the Commission (HR/VP) Josep Borrell presented the draft European Union (EU) ‘Strategic Compass’. Amidst geopolitical competition, rising threats, accelerated technological development, climate crisis and global instability, the compass aims to facilitate a ‘common sense of purpose’ in Union security and defence, strengthen action, deepen partnerships, and stimulate innovation. On 30 November 2021, Parliament’s Subcommittee on Security and Defence (SEDE) will hold an exchange of views on the state of play of the Strategic Compass.

Background

In November 2021, in a joint session of EU foreign affairs and defence ministers, the Council held an exchange on the first draft of the Strategic Compass, the product of work to streamline and boost the EU’s security and defence policy, under way since the start of the German Council Presidency in July 2020. The document, intended to provide political-strategic guidance for the next 5 to 10 years, received broad support from ministers, who committed to working towards adoption of the final compass in March 2022. Key messages from the Council and the HR/VP include widespread support for the capability resilience and partnership approach reflected in the draft compass, as well as an emphasis on complementarity with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). According to the media and leaked versions of the document, the compass focuses on boosting operational capacity while outlining strategic domains – such as outer space, maritime presence, and cyberspace – to enhance EU resilience, capabilities and ties with partners. It lists concrete deliverables for the short (2022) and medium terms (2025) across the compass’s four baskets (capabilities, crisis management, resilience, partnerships).

Incentivising action with flexibility

The Strategic Compass highlights that the EU needs ‘more rapidity, robustness and flexibility’ to undertake a full range of civilian-military actions. It proposes that an EU rapid deployment capacity is established, which would embody a ‘modular force of up to 5 000 troops’ by 2025. Building on the contested yet-to-be deployed EU battlegroups, the new force should be made up of land, sea and air components. By 2023, the compass envisages live exercises and additional deployment of civilian common security and defence policy (CSDP) missions, making 200 experts available within 30 days. The Military Planning and Conduct Capability (set up in 2017) would also be able to plan the EU’s non-executive military missions. The draft proposes strengthened support between CSDP missions and ad hoc coalitions. European Union Naval Force Somalia (EUNAVFOR) Atalanta and EU Training Mission (EUTM) Mali would be amongst the first missions to form these operational links by 2022. It further asserts greater space for ‘flexible modalities for the implementation of Art. 44 TEU ‘that enables the Council to entrust implementation of CSDP tasks to a group of willing Member States’. Invoking this ‘flexibility mechanism’ is perceived as encouraging states’ involvement and expediting the speed of deployments. The use of constructive abstention (Art. 31 TEU) whereby states who neither support nor object to an action, have a ‘way out’ of the decision-making process without blocking the initiative, is also mentioned. During a SEDE hearing on 15 November 2021, Chair of the EU Military Committee, Claudio Graziano, clarified that the decision to deploy these forces would be taken by unanimity, and in the subsequent stages by the contributing Member States. Experts note that sustained political engagement will be crucial for delivering on these ambitions.

Capability development and resources: Investing in EU defence

The draft compass commits the EU to revising its defence capability planning, including the headline goal process, by 2023. In consultation with the European Commission and the European Defence Agency (EDA), the HR/VP will also provide the European Council with an annual progress report while the threat analysis is to be revisited at least every five years to ensure its continued relevance. ‘Strategic enablers’, i.e. the equipment required for conducting expeditionary operations, are a strategic priority. These include surveillance capabilities, defence systems and space communication to preserve EU access to strategic domains. Several enablers, such as the future combat air system and the main ground combat system are already under way, albeit coordinated outside the EU structures. The HR/VP urges states to supply ‘associated assets and the necessary strategic enablers’ so that the compass does not remain a ‘paper tiger’, a concern reportedly expressed by certain Member States. The German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP), a think-tank, has proposed using the interlinkages between the draft compass, and the existing initiatives (e.g. high impact capability goals and capability development plan). In addition, the draft sets 2023 as a benchmark for reassessment of the scope of common costs, while encouraging regular increases in defence budgets. While making use of the European Defence Fund, additional investment in innovation, and research and technology are also envisaged. It is noted that greater investment in European innovation reduces dependencies on third parties and secures critical supply chains. However, the gradual increase in defence spending observed between 2014 and 2019 is likely to be affected by the economic impact of Covid‑19, which has shifted Member States’ priorities, contributing to decreased funding for defence instruments under the 2021‑2027 multiannual financial framework. With limited buy-in, persistent capability gaps, and pandemic-affected economies, some have argued that the ‘Strategic Compass could end up as an unaffordable wish list’, signalling caution to Member States.

Partnerships Mutual defence and assistance
With regard to the mutual defence clause in the Treaty of Lisbon (Art. 42(7) TEU) the draft Strategic Compass envisions strengthened mutual assistance via frequent exercises, which could also entail the cyber domain, from 2022 onwards. This resonates with expert views, e.g. the Egmont Institute and Clingendael, which have argued in favour of an expansion of the use of the clause to also apply to non-military forms of subversion, embodied in some hybrid threats. DGAP has also suggested that the assistance should be of a more binding nature. On 29 November 2021, SEDE will hold a public hearing on Article 42(7), with a briefing from the EEAS on an EU-level exercise on that article.

The draft compass maintains that the transatlantic bond forms a cornerstone of EU security and defence, supporting the establishment of a dedicated EU‑United States Security and Defence Dialogue by 2022 and more frequent information exchanges between the North Atlantic Council and the EU Political and Security Committee. The 2021 NATO Brussels Declaration reiterates the necessity to ‘intensify further [our] consultations and cooperation’ with the EU. Consequently, mutual security concerns should drive joint inclusive exercises to advance Euro-Atlantic security. Importantly, the document proposes the creation of the rapid deployment capacity and the rapid hybrid response teams, in line with NATO’s standards. The overall responsiveness to challenges would be strengthened through cooperation with like-minded states, such as the United Kingdom, Canada and Norway, with the latter two already invited to participate in the military mobility project. The draft proposes collaboration with the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), United Nations (UN) and Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) on, for example, early warning and conflict prevention – mechanisms which also bolster resilience.

Strategic culture

The draft document defines strategic culture as a shared perception of threats and a common strategic vision. The joint threat analysis (to be carried out periodically) is seen as a building block for a single strategic culture, a point also made in the conclusions of the CARD 2020, report, which links the forging of a common security and defence culture to the EU’s ability to address differing threat perceptions. Experts caution that the concept is largely ‘elusive’, albeit an essential feature of defence; they note Member States are likely to continue prioritising threats vital to their own national interests. Some proposals see the compass process as a way to create sub-groups of Member States, based on their overlapping threat perceptions.

European Parliament position On 15 November 2021, the SEDE subcommittee held an exchange of views with General Claudio Graziano, Chair of the EU Military Committee, incorporating an extensive discussion of the proposed EU rapid deployment capacity. Since the summer of 2020, SEDE has held numerous hearings on the ‘four baskets‘. The draft annual European Parliament report on the implementation of the CSDP (rapporteur: Nathalie Loiseau, Renew, France) makes extensive reference to the Strategic Compass process and to Parliament’s expectations for it to deliver.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Strategic Compass: Towards adoption‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament

Written by Katarzyna Sochacka and Clare Ferguson.

Due to the deteriorating Covid‑19 situation, the November II plenary session in Strasbourg was again organised with the possibility for Members to vote remotely. Parliament debated a number of Council and European Commission statements, including on: coordination of Member States’ coronavirus measures; police violence against Roma people; preparation of the 12th World Trade Organization Ministerial Conference; state of the Energy Union; a European action plan against rare diseases; and on international port congestion and increased transport costs. Members also debated the conclusions of the European Council meeting of 21‑22 October 2021, and heard Council and Commission statements on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Parliament adopted several resolutions and legislative acts, inter alia on a European strategy for critical raw materials, EU sports policy, and on a pharmaceutical strategy for Europe.

Situation in Belarus

Prior to an address by Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, Belarusian opposition leader, to a formal sitting of Parliament, Members heard Commission and Council statements on the situation in Belarus, with President Sassoli condemning the security and humanitarian consequences of the instrumentalisation of migrants by Aliaksandr Lukashenka’s Belarussian regime.

Common agricultural policy (CAP)

One of the main ways in which the EU spends its budget remains the common agricultural policy (CAP). Following a joint debate, Members adopted an agreement reached (after lengthy negotiations between the co-legislators) on three proposals to reform EU farm policy for the new budgetary period – the 2021‑2027 multiannual financial framework (MFF). Given the time taken to reach these agreements, the new reforms should come into effect on 1 January 2023, with a temporary extension currently in place for 2021 and 2022 spending. The first file concerns the new requirement for each EU Member State to draw up a CAP strategic plan, setting out exactly how they will use the CAP to support farmers, and market and rural development. This new delivery model should provide greater flexibility and subsidiarity, and is expected to better align CAP spending with EU environmental and climate priorities. Members then adopted an agreement on the CAP horizontal regulation on financing, management and monitoring rules that reflects Parliament’s desire for a stronger crisis reserve and a clearer division of tasks in the governance system. Finally, Members agreed a compromise reached on reform of the common market organisation in agriculture, which governs production of and trade in agricultural products, where Parliament has ensured the reform leads to a more agile agricultural market and protects our natural resources.

European Union’s 2022 budget

Negotiations to agree the EU budget for 2022 took place in a very dynamic context, with the urgent need to tackle the Covid‑19 pandemic, climate change and humanitarian crises uppermost in negotiators’ minds. Members debated and then adopted the provisional agreement reached between the co‑legislators during recent budgetary conciliation. Parliament has insisted that funding should be boosted for the top priorities for 2022 spending: the coronavirus recovery and the green and digital transitions, focusing on groups hard-hit by the pandemic such as small businesses and young people. Parliament also supports stronger health measures, including for the COVAX programme, as well as spending on security, migration, asylum and integration, fundamental rights and Union values.

Outcome of COP26 in Glasgow

Members heard and debated Commission and Council statements on the outcome of the 26th Conference of the United Nations Climate Conference (COP26). With countries’ nationally determined contributions (NDC) ahead of the event leading to an estimated 2.7°C warming towards the end of the century, the host, the United Kingdom, set the goal to keep a limit of 1.5°C warming within reach. Members were divided on the success of the conference, although it was largely regarded as an important step in the right direction. However, Members also called for more ambition from EU and non-EU countries (particularly China).

Revision of the Financial Regulation

The EU Financial Regulation, which governs the establishment, implementation and scrutiny of the EU budget, needs to be updated to ensure good governance of the funding made available under the new MFF and the Next Generation EU fund. Members debated and adopted an own-initiative resolution anticipating the European Commission’s forthcoming proposal for an update to the Financial Regulation. The report calls for modernised budgetary rules that fully reflect EU values (e.g. on the rule of law, on climate impacts and on gender). It also underlines the need to increase transparency and democratic accountability by ensuring information about recipients of EU funding is made public and, importantly, that the Parliament’s role in scrutinising expenditure is respected. This is considered particularly important when managing crises or when ‘off-budget instruments’ are established.

Legal migration policy and law

Members adopted a legislative-initiative resolution, based on a Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) Committee report, calling for a package of amendments to current EU legal migration policy and law, to make it easier for non-EU citizens who migrate legally to the EU to find employment. While the EU has already taken measures to allow highly qualified non-EU citizens to take up employment in the EU, a gap remains, as labour markets need low- and medium-skilled workers.

Digitalisation of reporting, monitoring and audit of EU spending

The variety of different reporting systems used by EU governments (over 290) unnecessarily complicates the vital task of scrutinising EU spending to ensure citizens’ interests are respected. Members adopted a legislative-initiative resolution, following a Budgetary Control (CONT) Committee report, calling for digitalisation to streamline the reporting, monitoring and auditing of EU spending. The resolution demands that an integrated and interoperable electronic information and monitoring system is set up before the end of 2021, to collect, monitor and analyse information about recipients of EU funding in all Member States.

International Day of Elimination of Violence against Women

The Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention) is the first instrument in Europe to set legally binding standards specifically to prevent gender-based violence, protect victims of violence and punish perpetrators. The EU’s accession to the Istanbul Convention is a priority under the EU 2020-2025 gender equality strategy. The EU signed the Convention in June 2017. Accession now requires a Council Decision and prior consent by the European Parliament. Parliament adopted an interim resolution in September 2017 and continues to review progress. On the International Day of Elimination of Violence against Women (25 November), Parliament held a debate on the Commission’s statement on the state of play on the ratification of the Istanbul Convention.

Opening of trilogue negotiations

Members confirmed, without vote, a mandate for negotiations from the Culture and Education (CULT) Committee on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on a European Year of Youth 2022. An Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL) Committee mandate for negotiations on the proposal for a directive on the adequate minimum wages in the EU was also approved by a vote in plenary.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Plenary round-up – November II 2021‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Marcin Szczepański.

The growing importance of global supply chains has fundamentally changed the way the global economy and goods manufacturing are organised. While trade conducted through global supply chains has fallen somewhat as a share of total trade since the 2008-2010 global financial and economic crisis, more than two-thirds of international trade still involves transactions made possible by such chains. The EU is profoundly involved in these production chains, more so than most other countries, and significantly more than both the United States and China.

The pandemic disrupted many supply chains at its outbreak, and the subsequent economic recovery, the strongest on record, led to enormous further strain on the global supply system; surging demand, coupled with shortages of workers, ships, containers, air cargo space and clogged ports, created a ‘perfect storm’. Supply chain bottlenecks are starting to weigh on the economic recovery, slowing growth and leading to delays, holding back the manufacturing sector and fuelling inflation.

The EU had recognised its strategic dependence on some foreign inputs even before the pandemic, and had started to seek ways to increase its autonomy – a quest which has been accelerated by the impact of the coronavirus. To improve the resilience of supply chains, the EU is applying a policy mix that aims to increase domestic capacity, diversify suppliers and support the multilateral rules-based trade environment; it has also enhanced its cooperation with the US on supply chains. Other like-minded countries apply a similar policy mix, focusing on supporting reshoring or nearshoring.

While this situation is not ideal, global supply chains are hard to reconfigure, and increasing their resilience is a time-consuming and costly process. Moreover, most experts predict that reshoring or nearshoring will be of limited importance. With time, though, resilience may improve through international cooperation, diversification and the accelerated uptake of digital technologies.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Resilience of global supply chains: Challenges and solutions‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Marie Lecerf.

Both the EU and its Member States have signed the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and use its definition of disability as a common reference at EU level. Bearing in mind that there is no other harmonised definition of disability in the EU, and that there is a wide variety of statistical surveys in terms of questions asked and population surveyed, a complete statistical assessment of disability in the EU does not yet exist. However, the annual Eurostat statistics on income and living conditions survey reveals that, in Europe, the prevalence of disability is higher among female, older and less educated respondents. Furthermore, studies show that the coronavirus pandemic has affected people with disabilities disproportionately more than others.

The EU combats all forms of discrimination alongside and in support of its Member States. To improve the situation of disabled people, it has introduced a series of initiatives, programmes and strategies over a number of decades. The European Parliament has been highly active in the bid to end all forms of discrimination against disabled people since the start of the 1980s.

In 1997, Article 13 of the European Community Treaty, introduced by the Treaty of Amsterdam, (now Article 19 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU) on the human right not to suffer from discrimination on the grounds, in particular, of disability, paved the way for a genuine disability policy. The first step in this regard was the adoption of a 2001-2006 action programme to combat discrimination. Later, the 2010-2020 European disability strategy sought to enable disabled people to exercise their rights and participate fully in society and the economy. A new 2021-2030 strategy, incorporating the lessons learned from its predecessor, seeks to ensure that all persons with disabilities in the EU, regardless of their sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, age or sexual orientation enjoy their human rights; have equal access to participation in society and the economy; are able to decide where, how and with whom they live; move freely in the EU regardless of their support needs and, no longer experience discrimination.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Understanding EU policies for persons with disabilities‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Dessislava Yougova (1st edition).

The EU’s effort-sharing legislation covers greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in sectors not included in the EU emissions trading system. A wide range of sources account for these emissions, such as petrol and diesel used for road transport, energy used for heating and cooling in buildings, animal digestion and fertilisers used in agriculture, waste treatment, and small industries. To cut the emissions in these sectors, the EU effort-sharing legislation establishes binding targets and sets up annual emissions allocations for each Member State for the 2013-2020 and 2021-2030 periods. On 14 July 2021, the European Commission submitted a proposal on a regulation amending the binding annual emissions reductions by Member States from 2021 to 2030. It reviews the collective and national targets set up in the Effort-Sharing Regulation (ESR). The proposal is part of the ‘fit for 55’ package, which aims to adapt EU climate and energy legislation to the new EU objective of an at least 55 % reduction in net GHG emissions by 2030 compared to 1990, in accordance with the recent European Climate Law. In order to contribute to the new climate ambition, sectors covered by the ESR should achieve a collective reduction of 40 % in their emissions by 2030 compared to 2005.

The file has been referred to the European Parliament’s Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI). Initial debates have been held and a draft report is being prepared.

Versions

• November 2021: Revising the Effort-Sharing Regulation for 2021-2030: ‘Fit for 55’ package (1st edition)

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2018/842 on binding annual greenhouse gas emission reductions by Member States from 2021 to 2030 contributing to climate action to meet commitments under the Paris Agreement Committee responsible:Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI)COM(2021)555
14.07.2021Rapporteur:Jessica Polfjärd (EPP, Sweden)2021/0200(COD)Shadow rapporteurs:Javi López (S&D, Spain)
Linea Søgaard-Lidell (Renew, Denmark) Margrete Auken (Greens/EFA, Denmark) Silvia Sardone (ID, Italy)
Anna Zalewska (ECR, Poland)
Silvia Modig (The Left, Finland)Ordinary legislative procedure (COD)
(Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Publication of draft report

Written by Rosamund Shreeves.

The International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women on 25 November marks the beginning of 16 days of global activism to raise awareness of this enduring violation of women’s and girl’s human rights and to share promising solutions. The end goal, symbolised by the colour orange, is to create a brighter world where all women live free from the many forms of violence perpetrated against them because they are women and from the attitudes and behaviours that allow this violence to continue. In connection with this year’s campaign, the United Nations (UN) stresses that gender-based violence against women is pervasive but not inevitable and that there are effective means of preventing and stopping it.

Once again, the backdrop to this year’s campaign is the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. Worldwide, it has been associated with an increase in many forms of violence against women and girls (VAWG), including domestic violence, cyber-violence, female genital mutilation (FGM), early marriage and human trafficking. Within the EU, the biggest spotlight has fallen on the rise in domestic violence, connected with lockdowns and the economic impacts of the pandemic. In 2020, comparative research for the European Parliament concluded that the pandemic has led to an increase in the prevalence and intensity of violence against women in some EU countries. This research and the European Institute for Gender Equality’s analysis of the impacts of the pandemic on intimate partner violence also find that the pandemic has created significant challenges for victim support organisations – as well as shining a harsh light on gaps in provision. Many forms of violence, including trafficking of women for sexual exploitation, have moved online, making victims even less visible and less able to ask for help and protection, as well as complicating efforts to tackle it.

At the same time, the pandemic has catalysed action. The efforts made during the pandemic illustrate what can be done with political will and resources. The Covid‑19 Global Gender Response Tracker, launched by UN Women and UNDP in September 2020, continues to monitor measures taken by governments worldwide to address violence against women and girls. It shows that the majority of EU countries have responded proactively to protect women, maintain existing services and introduce innovative ways of providing support for victims. EU Member States have shared promising measures. Some will use EU recovery funding to expand support for women who are victims of violence, including Belgium (for housing) and Spain (for hotlines).

Tackling gender-based violence – what works?

Good data is key to implementing successful prevention measures and providing survivors with the right support. In Italy, longitudinal data on calls to the national anti-violence helpline has helped to direct resources to services. It also demonstrates that information campaigns organised around the annual International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women and during the pandemic have been effective in raising women’s awareness of the tools available and their ability to seek help. In Spain, policies for eradicating violence against women are based on a national survey. Since 2019, it has included detailed questions for all types of violence about who the aggressor was, whether more than one perpetrator was involved, where the violence took place, how often, what the impacts were, whether and how it was reported and how satisfied the victim was with the result. Among other things, this level of data has made it possible to identify women who are particularly vulnerable to violence. For example, it shows that women with disabilities are more likely to suffer physical or sexual violence from a partner and that for one in five (23.4 %) their disability resulted from their partner’s violence. It also shows that young women aged 16 to 24 are more likely to experience stalking and sexual harassment, while women aged over 65 are more likely to experience intimate partner violence than women who are under 65, less likely to use services and more likely to hide the violence. Intimate partner violence is also higher for women born abroad. Reliable EU-level data could provide a similar level of knowledge to inform policy. The last EU-wide survey on violence against women was conducted in 2012. Eurostat will publish the findings of the follow-up, now underway, in 2023.

A comprehensive framework of legislation for preventing violence, supporting victims and prosecuting perpetrators is another important lever. Research shows that ratification of the Istanbul Convention, which sets minimum standards in all these areas, has contributed directly to the creation of services for victims in a number of EU countries and led to improvements in prevention and prosecution. EU accession to the Convention remains one of the EU’s priorities for preventing and combating violence against women, since it could help to provide more equal protection for women across Europe against all forms of gender-based violence. However, since 2017, when the EU signed the Convention, the accession process has stalled in the Council, where Member States must reach an agreement on the proposal. In October 2021, the European Court of Justice clarified that the decision should be taken by qualified majority voting, but the Council may take more time to build support before taking a decision. In view of the delay, the European Commission is now set to propose alternative legal measures. On 12 November 2021, Helena Dalli, the European Commissioner for Equality, explained to Members of Parliament’s Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (FEMM) and Civil Liberties, Justice & Home Affairs (LIBE) Committees that the EU directive on violence against women to be proposed by the Commission will set standards for prevention, protection and access to justice for victims, and criminalisation of specific forms of violence against women, to the extent of EU competence. It will take a victim-centred and intersectional approach and go beyond the Istanbul Convention by addressing both online and offline forms of violence. The European Parliament has long considered that EU accession to the Istanbul Convention and an EU directive are both important initiatives that should be pursued in parallel. Another longstanding demand is for violence against women to be added to the areas of serious crime listed in the Treaties, in recognition of its severity across the Union and as a solid legal basis for a comprehensive EU directive. In September 2021, Parliament adopted an own legislative initiative resolution with recommendations to the Commission on adding gender-based violence to the existing areas of serious crime. The accompanying European added value assessment by EPRS identifies five reasons why the EU has grounds to criminalise gender-based violence, including evidence that it costs society more than the crimes already listed in Article 83(1), including corruption, organised crime and illicit drug trafficking. The EWL, Europe’s umbrella organisation for women’s organisations, is also calling for violence against women to be recognised as an area of serious crime in Article 83(1) TFEU and for an EU directive on violence against women.

Transforming the attitudes, behaviours, and social norms that lie at the root of violence against women and girls is both a vital way of preventing it and a challenge. The World Health Organization and UN Women, amongst others, stress that this is a fruitful and effective area for intervention. Their framework, RESPECT women: Preventing violence against women, provides guidelines and examples of good practices for policy-makers for working with communities and individuals – including men and boys.

What are the attitudes and norms in Europe around violence against women? In the past 20 years, the European Commission has conducted Eurobarometer surveys in 1999, 2010 and 2016. The number of EU Member States and the specific questions have varied over time. However, all the surveys have asked for people’s views on how widespread different types of violence against women are, whether they are wrong in all circumstances, and whether they are or should be against the law. The 2016 survey found that there is a need for action, particularly in some countries. The majority of respondents in every country consider that specific acts of psychological, economic and sexual violence and sexual harassment are wrong and either are already against the law or should be so. However, significant minorities did not agree. For instance, almost all respondents (96 %) found domestic violence against women unacceptable, but 12 % did not think it should always be punished by law and 15 % considered it to be a private matter that should be handled within the family. One in ten Europeans (11 %) said that forcing a partner to have sex should not be against the law. Over a quarter (27 %) considered that rape can be justified in certain circumstances, for example, if the woman went home with someone (11 %), was drunk at the time (10 %), wearing revealing or ‘sexy’ clothing (10 %), did not fight back physically (10 %), or had had multiple sexual partners in the past (7 %). Around one in five respondents held other victim-blaming views, for example that women often make up or exaggerate claims of abuse or rape (22 %), or that violence against women is often provoked by the victim (17 %). More recent national polls paint a similar picture. In Italy, a 2018 survey on gender roles, stereotypes and attitudes to sexual violence found significant levels of prejudice around sexual violence. Last year, a survey by the Czech academy of sciences found that two thirds of respondents recognise the harm that may be caused to victims of psychological and physical domestic violence, but one third do not believe that forcing unwanted sexual intercourse upon a spouse or a partner, or socially isolating them would potentially cause very serious damage. The national and European polls illustrate that there is a gap between what Europeans believe and the reality. For example, while 96 % of Europeans say that it is unacceptable, the EU wide survey on violence against women found that 22 % of women have experienced domestic violence against women. There is also a significant gender gap. In Czechia, women consider domestic violence to be a more serious problem than men. The 2016 EU poll found that even in the youngest age groups, girls were more likely than boys to speak about gender-based violence and consider that it should be illegal.

The EU Gender Equality Strategy for 2020-2025 recognises that there is considerable work to do to address sexist perceptions about gender-based violence. It identifies educating boys and girls about gender equality from an early age and supporting the development of non-violent relationships as a key part of an effective policy for preventing violence against women and girls. Action planned by the European Commission includes exchanges of good practice and funding for violence prevention focusing on men, boys and masculinities. Funding of €4 224 700 has recently been announced for projects in this area. These will build on existing EU-funded initiatives, such as work with perpetrators to prevent violence against women, which has issued guidelines for working with men to challenge cyberviolence and published examples of examples of best practices.

Parliament will hear an update on progress towards EU accession to the Istanbul Convention and hold a debate on violence against women at its plenary session on 25 November 2021. A number of its male Members have been ambassadors for the White Ribbon Campaign for male allies against gender-based violence.

Related EPRS publications

• The Istanbul Convention: A tool for tackling violence against women and girls, At a glance briefing, November 2021
• Violence against women in the EU – state of play, Briefing, November 2021
• Gender-based violence as a new area of crime listed in Article 83(1) TFEU, European added value assessment, June 2021
• Combating gender-based cyber-violence at EU level, European added value assessment, March 2021 on gender-based violence, November 2021
• Topical digest on gender-based violence, November 2021
• EP Library Guide: Selected Online Reading on Violence Against Women, 2021

Events for this year’s international day: At the UN:

• Official UN event, Wednesday 24 November, 16.00-17.30 Brussels time. recording available. The event includes statements on the EU’s external policy on gender-based violence, including the results of the joint EU-UN Spotlight Initiative.

At the European Parliament:

• Commission statement on the International Day of Elimination of Violence Against Women and the state of play on ratification of the Istanbul Convention by the EU, European Parliament Plenary Session, Thursday 25 November 2021 at 9.00, in the Strasbourg hemicycle and via web streaming.

• Inter-parliamentary committee meeting of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality: Eliminating Violence against Women, Tuesday 30 November 2021, from 9.00‑18.45, European Parliament, Brussels, room SPAAK 1A2 / via webstreaming. Panel discussions on sexual violence as a weapon of war; combating violence against women and girls with disabilities; cyber-violence; and the Istanbul Convention

• Subcommittee on Human Rights (DROI) workshop on Femicide as a global human rights concern: from recognition to action, Monday 6 December 2021, 16.45‑18.15, Brussels, Paul Henri Spaak building, room 1A002 / via webstreaming

In Strasbourg:

• Les droits des femmes à l’épreuve des crises’ colloque organisé par la Ville de Strasbourg et en partenariat avec les associations féministes locales, Tuesday 23 November 2021 from 8.30‑17.00, Palais de la Musique et des Congrès (Place de Bordeaux) – salle Erasme. Register free in advance here.

In Brussels:

• 25 novembre: journée mondiale contre les violences faites aux femmes
• Debate on obstetric violence, Violences  Bienveillance obstétricales. (p)O(u)S(s)EZ, vous y êtes presque!, Tuesday 23 November, 18.30, Centre pour l’égalité Amazone, 10 rue du Méridien, 1210 Bruxelles. Registration: severine@ilferabeaudemain.team
• Demonstration STOP aux violences faites aux femmes, Sunday 28 November, 12.00‑18.00, Mont des Arts (Gare Centrale, place de l’Albertine), Brussels. March leaves at 13.00.

In Luxembourg

• Orange week 2021

Written by Jakub Przetacznik and Martin Russell.

Over the summer and autumn of 2021, in what is increasingly viewed as a hybrid warfare tactic aimed at destabilising Europe, Aliaksandr Lukashenka’s Belarussian regime has instrumentalised migrants, manipulating the organisation of flights from the Middle East to Minsk and deliberately orchestrating migrants’ onward travel to the EU-Belarus border. With weather conditions endangering migrants’ lives, the situation has also led to serious humanitarian consequences. This activity – which many argue also aims at distracting attention from the worsening situation of freedom in the country, with attacks against independent society, journalists and electronic media users – is only the latest in a string of events underlining deteriorating EU relations with Belarus.

The Lukashenka regime has been isolated since the falsified presidential elections of August 2020, and the brutal crackdown against peacefully protesting Belarusians. Instead of embracing dialogue with the democratic opposition and wider Belarusian society, Lukashenka chose another path, involving continued brutal repression of the country’s citizens. The worsening human rights situation and hijacking of Ryanair flight FR 4978, in June 2021, provoked a response from the EU. This includes a ban on Belarusian air carriers landing in or overflying the EU, a major extension of the list of people and entities already subject to sanctions, and the introduction of sanctions on key sectors of the Belarusian economy.

The European Parliament plays an active part in shaping this EU response. Parliament does not recognise Lukashenka’s presidency and has spoken out on human rights abuses in Belarus. Awarded Parliament’s 2020 Sakharov Prize, the Belarusian democratic opposition is frequently invited to speak for the Belarusian people in the European Parliament. Following the recent developments, Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya will make a formal address to the European Parliament in plenary session, on 24 November 2021.

This Briefing updates a previous edition, published in July 2021.

Read the complete briefing on ‘EU-Belarus relations: State of play – Human rights situation‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Liselotte Jensen.

Following prolonged talks, the 26th Conference of the Parties ended late on 13 November 2021. With countries’ nationally determined contributions (NDC) ahead of the event leading to an estimated 2.7°C warming towards the end of the century, the host, the United Kingdom, set the goal to keep a limit of 1.5°C warming within reach.

Outcomes of the conference

A main outcome of the 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26) is the Glasgow Climate Pact, requesting leaders to revisit their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) ahead of next year’s COP27. It notes the need to reduce emissions by 45 % by 2030, from 2010 levels, to align with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C ambition. From COP27, annual ‘pre-2030 ambition’ high-level ministerial meetings are to ensure climate action in this critical decade. A work programme to deliver on the global goal for adaptation was launched. Doubling of adaptation finance levels by 2025, compared to 2019, within the annual US$100 billion climate finance pledge was also agreed. The text further specifies the need to ‘phase down’ unabated coal and phase out inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies. COP26 also delivered on its goal to finalise the Paris rulebook, which allows for operationalisation of key aspects such as international carbon markets, the agreement on emissions accounting and reporting under the Enhanced Transparency Framework, and agreed common timelines in NDC submissions (every five years with a ten-year view).

Countries representing 85 % of world forest cover promised to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030. The Global Methane Pledge reached 100+ signatories, as did a clean vehicles pledge. Other commitments focused on reducing aviation and shipping emissions, while 30 countries and development banks vowed to end new public financing for unabated fossil-fuel projects by 2022. The Breakthrough Agenda will seek to deliver development and deployment of innovative technological solutions across several key sectors.

European Parliament position and role

Ahead of COP26, the European Parliament adopted its COP26 resolution at its October II plenary session, calling on world leaders to raise ambitions and for Europe to lead the way in ensuring a green global recovery and climate policies, in line with the just transition principle. The Parliament pointed to the overall need for increased climate finance, including striking a balance between mitigation and adaptation funds, to achieve the conditional aspects of NDCs. It urged a global end to fossil fuel subsidies, and pointed to the need to address specific sector challenges and potent warming gases such as methane. It called on the parties to finalise the Paris rulebook, ensuring transparency, strong environmental integrity and ambition. The Parliament previously adopted a resolution on climate diplomacy in 2018, and declared a climate and environment emergency in 2019. On the basis of the ‘Fit for 55‘ proposals, the European Parliament will have a key role as co-legislator in ensuring a legal framework fit to deliver the targets set in the Climate Law.

Reactions and next steps

Disappointment was voiced at the final text calling for a ‘phase down’ rather than a ‘phase out’ of coal, although observers point to this as significant, as it is the first time coal is singled out in a COP decision text. Criticism from developing countries regarding failed climate finance promises created tension ahead of COP26. An overruled proposal by the G77 and China for a finance facility dedicated to loss and damage reportedly almost jeopardised the Glasgow Climate Pact. Instead, a ‘Glasgow Dialogue’ on funding for loss and damage was launched, along with a strengthening of the Santiago Network. An ad-hoc work programme to quantify the post-2025 climate finance goal was also agreed. To close the Paris rulebook, carry-over of some 2013‑2020 Kyoto Protocol credits was agreed, an admission starkly criticised by some climate non-governmental organisations.

Read this ‘At a glance’ on ‘COP26 climate change conference: Outcomes‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Jaan Soone.

On 14 July 2021, the European Commission presented a package of proposals to equip the EU’s climate, energy, land use, transport and taxation policies to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55 % by 2030, compared with 1990 levels – the ‘fit for 55’ package. The package includes a proposal to revise the 2014 directive on alternative fuels infrastructure and turn it into a regulation.

In the draft regulation the Commission proposes binding targets for electric vehicle charging points and hydrogen refuelling points, electric charging for stationary aircraft at airports and on shore power supply for ships at ports. It also contains provisions for EU Member States to ensure coverage of refuelling points for liquefied natural gas (LNG) dedicated to heavy-duty vehicles and LNG refuelling points in maritime ports.

In the European Parliament, the file has been referred to the Transport and Tourism Committee.

Versions

• November 2021: Deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure: Fit for 55 package (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure, and repealing Directive 2014/94/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council Committee responsible:Transport and Tourism (TRAN)COM(2021) 559
14.07.2021Rapporteur:Ismail Ertug (S&D, Germany)2021/0223(COD)Shadow rapporteurs:Jens Gieseke (EPP, Germany)
Caroline Nagtegaal (Renew, the Netherlands)
Anna Deparnay-Grunenberg (Greens/EFA, Germany)
Roman Haider (ID, Austria)
Carlo Fidanza (ECR, Italy)
Elena Kountoura (The Left, Greece)Ordinary legislative procedure (COD)
(Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Publication of draft report © teksomolika / Adobe Stock

Written by Jaan Soone.

In December 2019 the European Commission published a communication on the Green Deal, in which it outlined its priorities to transform the EU into a resource-efficient and competitive economy and to meet the EU’s climate commitments.

Subsequently, in line with the Green Deal, the European Climate Law was adopted in July 2021, setting in law the EU target for 2030 of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55 % compared with 1990 levels. To deliver the targets agreed in the European Climate Law, the Commission adopted a set of legislative proposals known as the ‘Fit for 55’ package on 14 July 2021. To speed up emissions reductions in transport, the package includes proposals to tighten the emissions trading scheme and widen its scope, proposals to increase the use of alternative fuels in aviation and shipping, stricter CO2 emissions standards for road vehicles, and a proposal to amend the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Directive (AFID) and transform it into a regulation.

This briefing provides a snapshot of the current state of play in alternative fuels recharging and refuelling points, and in the number of alternative fuel vehicles in circulation in EU countries. Since the adoption of the AFID in 2014, infrastructure deployment for the various alternative fuels in road transport has grown, however differences persist between Member States. Similarly, the uptake of alternatively fuelled vehicles differs between Member States, and petrol and diesel engines continue to dominate vehicle fleets. Nonetheless, the market for electric vehicles has strongly matured, and the market for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles has also developed. The market for natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) vehicles is mature and has seen slow growth, but vehicles have remained concentrated in a few Member States. The briefing also summarises recent projections for future take-up of these vehicles.

See also the EPRS ‘EU Legislation in progress’ briefing on the revision of the Directive on the Deployment of Alternative Fuels Infrastructure (AFID).

Read the complete briefing on ‘Alternative fuel vehicle infrastructure and fleets: State of play‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Clare Ferguson.

Parliament’s second plenary session of November takes place in Strasbourg, with Members firmly focusing their agenda on one of Parliament’s most important tasks – its scrutiny of the way in which EU funds are spent.

Citizens expect the EU to spend its budget efficiently and transparently, and the European Parliament represents citizens’ interests through several mechanisms allowing for thorough checks of EU spending. One of the main ways in which the EU spends its budget remains the common agricultural policy (CAP). Following a joint debate scheduled for Tuesday morning, Members are scheduled to vote on the agreement reached (after lengthy negotiations between the co-legislators) on three proposals to reform EU farm policy for the new budgetary period – the 2021‑2027 multiannual financial framework (MFF). However, given the time taken to reach these agreements, the new reforms would come into effect on 1 January 2023, with a temporary extension currently in place for 2021 and 2022 spending. The first file concerns the new requirement for each EU Member State to draw up a CAP strategic plan, setting out exactly how they will use the CAP to support farmers, and market and rural development. This new delivery model should provide greater flexibility and subsidiarity, and is expected to better align CAP spending with EU environmental and climate priorities. The agreement on the CAP horizontal regulation on financing, management and monitoring rules reflects Parliament’s desire for a stronger crisis reserve and a clearer division of tasks in the governance system. Members are then expected to consider the compromise reached on reform of the common market organisation in agriculture, which governs production of and trade in agricultural products, including issues such as geographical indications. Parliament has been keen to ensure that the reform leads to a more agile agricultural market that responds to consumer and producer needs alike, and reflects the EU’s priorities in protecting our natural resources. Underlining the focus on climate measures, Members will also hear Council and Commission statements on the outcome of COP26 in Glasgow on Wednesday morning.

As can be seen from the organisation of CAP funding, 80 % of EU expenditure overall is handled at national level, through shared management of EU programmes. The variety of different reporting systems used by EU governments (over 290) unnecessarily complicates this vital task. A Budgetary Control (CONT) Committee legislative-initiative report calling for digitalisation to streamline the reporting, monitoring and auditing of EU spending is therefore scheduled for consideration on Tuesday afternoon. The report demands that an integrated and interoperable electronic information and monitoring system is set up before the end of 2021, to collect, monitor and analyse information about recipients of EU funding in all Member States. The EU Financial Regulation itself, which governs the establishment, implementation and scrutiny of the EU budget, also needs to be updated to ensure good governance of the funding made available under the new MFF and the Next Generation EU fund. On Monday evening, Members will consider an own-initiative report anticipating the European Commission’s forthcoming proposal for an update to the Financial Regulation. The report calls for modernised budgetary rules that fully reflect EU values (e.g. on the rule of law, on climate impacts and on gender). It also underlines the need to increase transparency and democratic accountability by ensuring information about recipients of EU funding is made public and, importantly, that the Parliament’s role in scrutinising expenditure is respected. This is considered particularly important when managing crises or when ‘off-budget instruments’ are established.

Negotiations to agree the EU budget for 2022 took place in a very dynamic context, with the urgent need to tackle the Covid‑19 pandemic, climate change and humanitarian crises uppermost in negotiators’ minds. On Tuesday afternoon, Members are scheduled to consider Parliament’s position on the provisional agreement reached this week between the co‑legislators. Parliament has insisted that funding should be boosted for the top priorities for 2022 spending: funding the coronavirus recovery and the green and digital transitions, including a focus on groups hard-hit by the pandemic such as small businesses and young people. Parliament also supports stronger health measures, including for the COVAX programme, as well as spending on security, migration, asylum and integration, fundamental rights and Union values.

The rule of law was one Leitmotif of the European Council meeting of 21‑22 October 2021 and Members will hear Commission and Council statements on the outcome of that meeting on Tuesday afternoon. This will be followed by statements on the situation in Belarus and at its border with the EU, particularly the security and humanitarian consequences. Belarus opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya is expected to make a formal address to Parliament on Wednesday lunchtime.

Parliament’s Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) Committee has tabled a legislative-initiative report for Tuesday afternoon, which calls for a package of amendments to current EU legal migration policy and law, to make it easier for non-EU citizens who migrate legally to the EU to find employment. The EU workforce is ageing, and could fall to 51 % of the total population by 2070. While the EU has already taken measures to allow highly qualified non-EU citizens to take up employment in the EU, a gap remains, as labour markets need low- and medium-skilled workers. The proposals include: creating a talent pool for non-EU applicants who wish to migrate legally; a voluntary framework for talent partnerships with third countries; an admission scheme for self-employed and entrepreneur migrants; a framework to recognise third-country nationals’ skills and qualifications; possibilities for short-term mobility to complement legal migration; and creation of a transnational advisory service network.

Finally, Council and Commission statements are expected on Thursday morning on the International Day of Elimination of Violence against Women and the state of play on the ratification of the Istanbul Convention.

• Digitalisation to streamline reporting, monitoring and auditing of EU spending (Think Tank)
• Legal migration policy and law (Think Tank)
• Financing, management and monitoring of the post-2022 EU agricultural policy (Think Tank)
• Amending rules on the common market organisation (CMO) in agriculture (Think Tank)
• Revision of the Financial Regulation (Think Tank)
• Strategic planning in the EU’s post-2022 agricultural policy (Think Tank)
• Adoption of the European Union’s 2022 Budget (Think Tank)

Written by Anna Caprile.

The culmination of two years’ preparatory work and worldwide mobilisation events, the United Nations Food Systems Summit took place on 23 September 2021. The idea behind the summit, initiated by United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, was to start a process of transforming the way the world produces, consumes and thinks about food – as a crucial step in progressing on all 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs).

The summit was announced in October 2019 – before the Covid‑19 pandemic became a hunger crisis in many parts of the world – and the stakes have since risen acutely, bringing a new sense of urgency and creating an opportunity to boost the level of reform ambition for global food systems.

More than 150 countries took part in the event, which took place entirely on line, wrapping up a process that has generated a remarkable level of mobilisation and public debate through multiple platforms. Although the summit revealed ample consensus on the need for a radical reform of food systems, it also evidenced profound divergences as to how to approach the daunting tasks ahead.  

A follow-up mechanism has been designed to advance the national and global transformative actions announced at the summit, and the United Nations Secretary-General will convene a global stock-taking meeting every two years to measure progress.

This briefing updates an earlier edition, published in September 2021 ahead of the Summit.

Read the complete Briefing on ‘United Nations Food Systems Summit 2021: Process, challenges and the way forward‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

• Why a food summit
• The food system in the context of other systems

Written by Tambiama Madiega (1st edition).

The European Commission unveiled a new proposal for an EU regulatory framework on artificial intelligence (AI) in April 2021. The draft AI act is the first ever attempt to enact a horizontal regulation of AI. The proposed legal framework focuses on the specific utilisation of AI systems and associated risks. The Commission proposes to establish a technology-neutral definition of AI systems in EU law and to lay down a classification for AI systems with different requirements and obligations tailored on a ‘risk-based approach’. Some AI systems presenting ‘unacceptable’ risks would be prohibited. A wide range of ‘high-risk’ AI systems would be authorised, but subject to a set of requirements and obligations to gain access to the EU market. Those AI systems presenting only ‘low or minimal risk’ would be subject to very light transparency obligations. While generally supporting the Commission’s proposal, stakeholders and experts call for a number of amendments, including revising the definition of AI systems, broadening the list of prohibited AI systems, strengthening enforcement and redress mechanisms and ensuring proper democratic oversight of the design and implementation of EU AI regulation.

Versions

• November 2021: Artificial intelligence act (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the council laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (artificial intelligence act) and amending certain Union legislative acts Committee responsible:Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) (provisional)COM(2021)206
21.04.2021Rapporteur:Brando Benifei (S&D, Italy)2021/0106(COD)Shadow rapporteurs:Deirdre Clune (EPP, Ireland)
Svenja Hahn, (Renew, Germany)
Kim Van Sparrentak (Greens/EFA, the Netherlands)
Kosma Zlotowski, (ECR, Poland)
Kateřina Konecna (The Left, Czechia)Ordinary legislative procedure (COD)
(Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Publication of draft report

• Pyramid of risks

Written by Nera Kuljanic.

The way most food is produced is harming the planet. A profound change is needed, involving all agri-food actors. As consumers, we sit at the end of the agri-food chain. Our daily dietary choices implicitly support certain food systems, production methods and types of food. What could help us make better choices?

Our food comes with a climate cost. Food systems are responsible for about a third of global greenhouse gas emissions. The majority of these are related to land use (such as deforestation) and on-farm production (related to fertilisers, cattle digestion and fuel use for example). Food transport, packaging and waste account for much less. Meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement may become impossible if we continue the current trend of greenhouse gas emissions from food production alone. Beyond emissions, the environmental impacts of modern-day agriculture also include its water footprint, water eutrophication, soil degradation and biodiversity loss. Besides being an environmental issue, food waste is also unethical.

Europeans seem concerned about the environmental footprint of the food on their plates. For almost 60 % sustainability considerations have at least some influence on their food choices – so they would like to see such information on food products. At the same time, a lack of information, the challenge of identifying sustainable food options, and their limited availability, are the most frequent barriers to sustainable eating (besides price).

Environmental labelling is already part of certain European Union (EU) policies. For some types of products sold within the EU single market, such information is provided in a standardised way and is often mandatory. This helps to remove the information asymmetry between consumers and producers when it comes to the carbon cost of such products. Car manufacturers are required to state carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions for all cars advertised or sold, and household electric appliances carry energy efficiency labels. A voluntary EU Ecolabel is awarded to products and services for environmental excellence throughout their life-cycle. When it comes to food, products carrying various labels and claims about their eco-friendly character abound on our supermarket shelves. While some labels focus on single ‘issues’ (water use, greenhouse gas emissions, packaging), others have a more holistic approach that encompasses the environmental, social and economic dimensions of sustainability. The labels are issued by non-governmental organisations (NGOs, e.g. FAIRTRADE mark), or national authorities (e.g. EU organic logo). Similarly, private brands often make self-declared environmental claims on their products. Labels can also indicate ‘country of origin‘ and ‘sustainable fish‘. Existing food labels are overwhelmingly ‘endorsement labels’, which simply certify that a product has met certain pre-defined criteria, offering no possibility to compare between products. Such proliferation, with the absence of clear or shared underpinning standards, may also be considered greenwashing. Consequently, even the most motivated consumers can be at a loss when it comes to purchasing eco-friendly food.

Consumers need clear guidance and reliable information to play their part in reducing the environmental footprint of modern agriculture. Information or claims regarding products at the point of purchase (ecolabels) can help consumers understand their environmental impact from farm to fork, nudging them to make a more sustainable choice. Preliminary scientific evidence suggests that ecolabels could provide an effective policy tool to promote more environmentally friendly food choices.

Potential impacts and developments

For the sake of transparency, credibility and consumer trust, a single labelling system is needed to present consistent information based on clear criteria. A pilot project using front-of-pack environmental scores in the form of traffic light labels has been taking place in the EU and the United Kingdom since September 2021. Based on the results of the pilot, an ‘optimal environmental labelling system’ should be launched in 2022.

Designing a standard, applying it to products and overseeing its implementation is not straightforward. The format, position and types of claims made by labels are important. Sensible criteria for placing labels and claims on products are needed to provide useful guidance to both vegans and meat-eaters. However, the vast diversity of food products means trade-offs are inevitable. Agri-food chain complexity, the range of environmental impacts and ambiguous definitions of sustainability make it difficult to calculate the net environmental impact of a product precisely. Lastly, the consumer decision-making process is complex. These are some of the challenges to be addressed before ecolabels on foods can be implemented effectively.

Nevertheless, simply printing labels and logos is not a silver bullet that will translate consumer intentions to make more climate-friendly food choices into action. To ‘activate’ consumers, they need to be aware of ecolabels, know how to read them, and understand their purpose in the context of efforts towards living within planetary boundaries. This knowledge then needs to result in a behavioural change. Researchers identified many factors affecting our purchase and eating behaviour, including age, gender, education, socioeconomic status, food price, taste, habits and convenience. Consumer groups may respond to labels differently: those who are committed to making environmentally friendly choices in their daily lives will be more responsive to ecolabels, for example. There are other issues: a particular combination of an ecolabel and a health claim on a product may result in a conundrum, tempting a consumer to, for example, select a healthy product that is harmful for the environment or vice versa. It is crucial to changing behaviour to identify and address such barriers, real or perceived. Wide communication and education campaigns are therefore needed to ‘activate’ consumers. This will require substantial effort and resources.

Finally, the implementation of ecolabels involves putting a credible assessment system in place. Such a system is essential to support regulatory authorities when awarding labels and monitoring products and claims to prevent fraud. The assessment will have to select relevant environmental impacts across a huge diversity of production methods and products. It will involve developing analytical methods, choosing appropriate indicators and setting up data-collection standards.

This mammoth task is not without challenges. It is unclear to what extent environmentally friendly food choices translate into sustainability benefits for our planet. It is impossible to link a particular claim and product to a specific effect on the environment. There is also a big difference between a single outcome improvement and a product’s environmental impact across its full life-cycle. Biodegradable packaging or reduced freshwater use in production does not guarantee that a product’s net environmental impact is not harmful. A farmer practising regenerative agriculture to improve soil health can still be a net greenhouse gas emitter. Another challenge is the relatively frequent innovation in ingredients and product formulations, and the variability in sourcing ingredients. This means that a single product’s environment-related attributes can often vary. Another problem is data-related: claims are mostly made on the basis of perceived impacts or proxy variables, rather than specific product life-cycle assessments or on-the-ground measurements. If data collection is required from farm to fork, it may place a huge burden on small producers and suppliers.

Anticipatory policy-making

Food labelling is already regulated in the EU, including the placing of nutrition and health claims. As announced in the EU farm to fork strategy, the European Commission is expected to propose a sustainable labelling framework in 2024, which will cover, in synergy with other relevant initiatives, the nutritional, climate, environmental and social aspects of food products. Introducing such standardised environmental labels on foods requires the issues outlined in the previous section to be addressed. Besides commitment from governments; farmers and business, researchers and NGOs also play key roles. For example, climate and agricultural research can provide inputs for developing models for impact assessment across food systems, and insights from consumer science can help set up effective labelling schemes. Such research can be funded through EU programmes including Horizon Europe. Consumer groups and other NGOs are important partners for communicating the tangible aspects of sustainability and the power of consumer action. Ecolabels can work in two ways. To consumers, they can signal eco-friendly food choices. To producers, they can be an incentive for sustainable farming, rethinking supply chains, and reformulating products. Nevertheless, ecolabels are not a panacea to transforming food systems. A broad set of policy measures is needed to make a sustainable food choice the easiest option for consumers. Actions have to be taken throughout the product life-cycle from farm to fork (or dump), combining regulatory initiatives, fiscal ‘carrots and sticks’, and information and education campaigns.

Read the complete briefing on ‘What if ecolabels could nudge us to choose greener food?‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘What if ecolabels could nudge us to choose greener food?’ on YouTube.

Written by Marcin Szczepański.

On 8 October 2021, the OECD announced that, following years of intense negotiations, 136 countries had finally reached an agreement on how to tackle the tax policy challenges arising from the digitalisation of the economy. A growing realisation that these challenges cannot be addressed by the existing tax system – over a century old – helped achieve the breakthrough. With this, one of the main questions pertinent to the digital economy – how to fairly tax businesses that rely on intangible assets and have no or only an insignificant physical presence in the tax jurisdictions where they operate – seems to have been answered.

The EU and other international bodies have been discussing these issues for some time. In March 2018, the EU introduced a legislative package on the fair taxation of the digital economy. It contained proposals for an interim and a long-term digital tax. However, there was no immediate political agreement in the Council. As finding a global solution at the OECD level or a coordinated EU approach was not yet feasible at the time, some Member States started designing or implementing their own digital taxes, which gave rise to trade tensions.

The two-pillar solution agreed under the auspices of the OECD will put an end to this fragmentation. Pillar One would reallocate taxation rights concerning the largest and most profitable multinationals, and Pillar Two would introduce a global minimal corporate tax rate. While the consensus has been broadly welcomed, the new rules have also sparked controversy, particularly regarding their impact on developing countries, their complexity and their resilience to possible circumvention. The agreement will be presented for endorsement during the G20 Leaders’ Summit scheduled for 30-31 October 2021 in Rome.

This Briefing updates a previous one from March 2020.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Taxing the digital economy: New developments and the way forward‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘Taxing the digital economy: New developments and the way forward’ on YouTube.

Written by Anita Orav.

The European Asylum Support Office (EASO) is a European Union agency that provides tools to help the EU Member States prepare for an influx of asylum applicants and implement EU legislation on the ground. The Malta-based agency was established in 2010 as an impartial centre of expertise, with the objective of developing practical cooperation between the Member States, offering support in the event of particular asylum-related pressures and providing evidence for EU policy-making.

In 2016, EASO played a major role in implementing the immediate actions outlined in the European agenda on migration, which focused on strengthening the EU’s emergency response to the migration crisis. The European Commission has also called for a strengthened role for EASO in other related areas. To enable the agency to fulfil its new tasks, build up staff, and deliver operational and technical support to Member States, EASO’s budget has seen a nearly tenfold increase over the past seven years, from €14.6 million in 2014 to close to €140 million in 2021.

However, concerns have been voiced regarding the way EASO’s mandate has expanded in practice, without the necessary legal basis, and regarding the lack of transparency or appropriate monitoring mechanisms vis à vis its activities. In 2016, as a response to the shortcomings revealed in the EU’s migration management, the Commission presented a proposal to amend and expand EASO’s mandate, also changing its name to the European Union agency for asylum to reflect its stronger powers. As part of the asylum reform package, the proposal was put on hold, but was then relaunched as part of the new pact on asylum and migration in September 2020. On 29 June 2021, the European Parliament and the Council reached a political agreement on the agency. To enter into force, the agreement now needs to be endorsed formally by the co-legislators. The text agreed was debated in plenary session on 7 October 2021, and the Parliament is expected to vote on it during November 2021.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Introducing the European Union agency for asylum‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘Introducing the European Union agency for asylum’ on YouTube.

Evolution of EASO appropriations