European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

Written by Joanna Apap with Capucine du Perron de Revel.

According to statistics published by the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, since 2008 over 318 million people around the world have been forcibly displaced by floods, windstorms, earthquakes or droughts, 30.7 million in 2020 alone. This is equivalent to one person being displaced every second. Depending on the frequency and scale of the major natural disasters occurring, there are significant fluctuations in the total number of displaced people from one year to the next, yet the trend over recent decades has been a growing one. Many find refuge within their own country, but some are forced to go abroad. In the summer of 2021, Europe witnessed heavy and unprecedented flooding, particularly in Belgium and Germany, and heat domes in the Mediterranean region. Scientists relate this directly to climate change. All things considered, the number of ‘climate refugees’ looks set to rise.

So far, the national and international response to this challenge has been limited, and protection for the people affected remains inadequate. What adds further to the gap in protection of such people – who are often described as ‘climate refugees’ – is that there is neither a clear definition of this category of people, nor are they covered by the 1951 Refugee Convention. The latter extends only to people who have a well-founded fear of being persecuted because of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and who are unable or unwilling to seek protection from their home countries. While the EU has not so far recognised climate refugees formally, it has expressed growing concern and has taken action to support the countries potentially affected by climate-related stress and help them develop resilience.

This briefing is an update of an earlier one from January 2019.

Read this briefing on ‘The concept of ‘climate refugee’: Towards a possible definition‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

• Internal displacement of people due to natural disasters

Written by Sidonia Mazur.

The European Parliament is one of the two arms of the budgetary authority of the European Union, the Council being the other. The two institutions, assisted by the European Commission, decide on the budget in the annual EU budgetary procedure, within the limits of the long-term EU budget (the multiannual financial framework (MFF)). The annual EU budget funds EU policies and programmes following the Union’s political priorities and legal obligations. The financial year starts on 1 January and ends on 31 December. The European Parliament amends the Council position on the draft budget proposed by the European Commission through the work of its Committee on Budgets (BUDG) and the specialised parliamentary committees.

During the October II plenary session, the Parliament is due to vote on amendments to the Council’s position on the draft EU budget for 2022. The 2022 budget is the second under the 2021‑2027 MFF. It is also the second year of the EU Recovery Instrument – Next Generation EU (NGEU) – planned to run for the years 2021 to 2023. The BUDG committee report reverses all the reductions to the Commission’s budget that were proposed by the Council. Furthermore, it proposes a considerable increase in 2022 budget contributions to Parliament’s priorities, in particular the recovery from the Covid‑19 crisis. The BUDG report sets the 2022 EU budget at €171.8 billion in commitments. For payments, it proposes almost €172.47 billion.

The report confirms the Parliament’s priorities with the overarching objective being support to Covid-19 recovery. The top priorities are:  investment with a particular focus on SMEs, the green and digital transitions, giving fresh opportunities to young people and providing protection to children, and a strong European Health Union (including the COVAX programme). Finally yet importantly, the report underlines the priorities in the fields of security, migration, asylum and integration, fundamental rights and Union values. The committee restores appropriations to the level of the draft budget on all Commission lines subsequently cut by the Council.

The next step in the procedure will be the convening of the Conciliation Committee, bringing together Parliament and Council delegations. The 21‑day conciliation period will last until 15 November, with the first meeting scheduled for 28 October.

Further reading

• For more information on Parliament’s reading of the EU 2022 budget see our at a glance note.
• For more on Parliament’s role in the EU annual budgetary procedure see: Annual EU budgetary procedure: An introduction to the steps in the EP
• For more on the MFF see our up to date blogpost or our interactive infographic.
• For more on the recovery plan for Europe see our briefing.

Written by Liselotte Jensen.

Adopted in 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has gathered the nations of the world with the common goal to limit dangerous global warming. In December 2021, after having been postponed for a year due to the coronavirus crisis, world leaders will meet in Glasgow for the 26th Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP26) to continue negotiations on the implementation of the Paris Agreement.

The latest assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) underscores the of role human activities in causing global warming. The UNFCCC-commissioned IPCC special report on impacts of global warming of 1.5°C (SR1.5) also outlines the risks of current trajectories. There is therefore strong pressure on world leaders to deliver progress in Glasgow.

Parties to the Paris Agreement were required to update their nationally determined contributions to fight climate change and its impacts before COP26. Some Parties are yet to do so, while analysis of submitted contributions as of July 2021, shows action to reach the agreed targets remains insufficient. Most key emitting nations continue to rate poorly on their climate action performance.

While COP24 and COP25 both failed to finalise the Paris Agreement rulebook, and developed nations so far fall short of fulfilling their climate finance promises, expectations are mounting for Glasgow to finish the job. At the same time, Covid‑19 restrictions and impacts continue to create challenges to participate in person, especially for developing countries’ delegations.

Recent Eurobarometer surveys show citizens have a clear expectation that their governments should handle the climate change challenge, with research also pointing to a growing acceptance of the need to change personal habits in view of transitioning to more sustainable economies.

The European Parliament will vote on a motion for a resolution on COP26 at the October II plenary session in Strasbourg. The draft highlights the urgency of action and calls upon leaders to ensure a just transition and adequate support for areas and states vulnerable to climate change impacts.

Read this briefing on ‘Looking to Glasgow: A scene-setter ahead of COP26‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

• Share of NDCs mentioning use of Article 6 options
• Historical and projected total global emissions according to NDCs
• Timeline of IPCC scientific reports publications in support of policy-making

Written by Clare Ferguson.

Following on swiftly from the October I plenary session, Members will meet in Strasbourg for the October II session, again in hybrid format, with a number of important files on the agenda.

Despite the extreme weather conditions experienced during the last two years, the Covid‑19 pandemic appears to have diverted governments’ attention somewhat from the robust and urgent action needed to follow up on their Paris Agreement commitments. Developed nations have not yet honoured their promises to deliver funding by 2020. With COP26 fast approaching, Members will vote on a motion for resolution, tabled by Parliament’s Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI), on Wednesday evening. The draft resolution calls for stricter rules on voluntary cooperation to reach mitigation goals under Article 6 of the Agreement. It also urges that Europe show greater climate leadership to ensure a green global recovery and climate policies that align with the just transition principle. While underlining the need to end fossil fuel subsidies, the resolution also notes the urgency of tackling transport, agriculture and methane emissions.

One initiative aimed at pushing the switch to sustainability in EU food systems, the ‘farm to fork’ strategy, is likely to see continued lively debate on Monday evening. Parliament’s ENVI and Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI) Committees have tabled a joint own-initiative report that welcomes the strategy, but urges greater action on balancing economic needs against sustainability criteria. The committees call for action across the spectrum of the food system, to support farmers and food producers alike in reducing their environmental impact. The report notes that EU countries’ strategic post-2022 common agricultural policy plans will be key to a successful transition to a fair, healthy and environmentally friendly food system.

However, the main theme for this second session of October is the EU budget. Parliament’s reading of the 2022 EU budget is scheduled to take place on Tuesday afternoon, with Members deciding on amendments to the Council’s position on this second budget under the 2021‑2027 multiannual financial framework. The amendments proposed by the Committee on Budgets (BUDG) reverse the cuts proposed by the Council, and instead propose a considerable increase in contributions to the Covid‑19 recovery. The BUDG committee wishes to see greater allocation to boosting investment, tackling unemployment, and laying the foundations for a more resilient and sustainable Union. Once Parliament agrees its position, the file will go to a meeting of the Conciliation Committee, bringing together Parliament and Council delegations, for consideration. Members will also vote on a BUDG committee report recommending that Parliament endorse the Council position on Draft amending budget No 4/2021, on Tuesday lunchtime. This amending budget updates the revenue side of the EU budget, now that the new system of own resources is in place, including a revised revenue forecast for the 2021 budget. The amendments also cover adjustments to the United Kingdom’s post-withdrawal contributions to the EU budget and certain EU countries’ reductions in annual contributions.

Parliament has exclusive competence to grant or refuse discharge for the execution of the EU budget and returns to the remaining discharge decisions for the 2019 financial year, with a vote scheduled for Tuesday lunchtime on discharge for the 2019 budget of the European Council and Council (postponed since April 2021). Parliament has refused to grant discharge to the Council every financial year since 2009, and a Committee on Budgetary Control (CONT) report recommends the same outcome in respect of the 2019 budget. The CONT committee regrets that the Council’s refusal to cooperate demonstrates a lack of respect for Parliament’s role as guarantor of the democratic accountability of EU institutions’ spending. The other file, scheduled for debate on Thursday morning, concerns the 2019 budget discharge for the European Border and Coast Guard Agency. Here, the CONT committee now recommends granting the discharge postponed in April 2021. The committee nevertheless makes a number of recommendations concerning the Agency’s operations: on the effectiveness of its primary operations at the external EU borders, including the respect of fundamental rights; and on its human resources and financial management in particular. For these reasons, the committee recommends freezing part of the Agency’s budget until 2022, pending improvement.

Turning to the money in our own pockets, Members will consider adoption at first reading of the agreed text on the proposed credit servicers directive, on Tuesday lunchtime. During the financial crisis, many people were unable to repay their loans, leading to banks accumulating unsustainable levels of unpaid loans (known as non-performing loans, or NPL) on their balance sheets – and loans being bought or passed on to credit servicers for, sometimes robust, collection. With an eye to the possible economic consequences of the coronavirus crisis, this legislative proposal aims at safeguarding borrowers’ rights, while also promoting a sound secondary market in NPLs. Parliament’s Economic & Monetary Affairs (ECON) Committee has ensured that the draft text protects consumers and small businesses who experience financial difficulties during this delicate period.

We’ve been able to drive wherever we like in the European Union since 2009, thanks to EU legislation that ensures that our motor vehicle insurance covers us throughout the EU. The time has now come for a revision of the directive, in particular to better protect road traffic accident victims against those who drive without insurance. On Thursday morning, Members will debate an agreed text on the proposed revision of the Motor Insurance Directive at first reading. The agreement includes Parliament’s demands that motor insurance price comparison tools meet certain standards and that they are certified by Member States, with possible fines for misleading consumers. It also excludes light electric and off-road vehicles. The European Commission will need to evaluate implementation of the revised rules after seven years.

On Monday evening, Members will debate a Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL) legislative-initiative report with recommendations to the Commission on protecting workers from asbestos. The committee calls for a ‘European strategy for the removal of all asbestos’, a substance which causes cancer, killing 30 000 to 90 000 people in the EU every year. Given the persistence of asbestos in buildings in the EU and the need to update exposure limits, the EMPL committee proposes to connect policies to remove asbestos, strengthen worker protection and support for victims. This could include updating current legislation on protecting workers, and new proposals on recognising occupational diseases and standards for compensation, as well as mandatory screening of buildings.

Looking beyond the EU’s borders, and against the background of China’s renewed and aggressive pursuit of its ‘One China’ policy, a timely debate on EU-Taiwan political relations and cooperation is scheduled for Tuesday afternoon. There are many reasons for Parliament’s continued support for Taiwan, not least its position as an active democracy in the region and as an industrial nation supplying vital semiconductors, among other things. The Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET) report accompanying the draft recommendation calls for an enhanced partnership, a stronger bilateral investment agreement, supports Taiwan’s efforts to gain a seat at the international table, and expresses concern regarding the Chinese position. Members are expected to vote later in the session on a draft recommendation to the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President.

The Commission is also expected to make statements to Parliament during the session on its 2022 work programme, the rule of law crisis in Poland, on pushbacks at the EU’s external borders, on preparations for the European Council meeting later in the week and the outcome of the Western Balkans Summit.

Written by Frederik Scholaert.

Fishing is often seen as a male activity, especially when it comes to working on board fishing vessels and involving long absences at sea. However, women play an important role in thefisheries sector, especially in small-scale family businesses. Either they are involved in the fishing activity itself, on board or on foot as shellfish gatherers, or they support the business through on-shore activities such as fishing gear preparation and maintenance, transporting fish to auctions, sales, administration, logistics or even the development of tourist activities.

This work is not always recognised. According to a study for the European Commission, the share of unpaid women in fisheries (6.6 %) is almost double their share in total employment (3.8 %). However, this level of employment is an underestimate, as women who are not actively engaged on board fishing vessels are often not visible in the official statistics. A 2018 study collected data from community-led partnerships called ‘Fisheries Local Action Groups’ (FLAGs) that bring together the private sector, local authorities and civil society. Based on a sample of data, the study estimated female employment in FLAG areas at about 13 % of total employment in fisheries.

Women are also very present in other seafood sectors. They represent about a quarter of the aquaculture workforce and about half in the fish processing industry. The figures differ greatly per EU country and region. In Lithuania, the share of female workers in fish processing is 69 %. The share is even higher in specific FLAG areas, it is estimated at 75 % in Costa a Morte in Spain and 90 % in Plodovi Mora in Croatia.

In total, it is estimated that more than 100 000 women were employed in the EU’s fisheries, aquaculture or fish processing sectors in 2014.

Although women make up a significant part of the workforce, they often work in underpaid and low-value positions. In addition, they are under-represented in decision‑making bodies.

The European Parliament has long championed the important role of women in fishing communities, both in the EU and as part of ‘sustainable fisheries partnership agreements’ with non-EU countries. Following its 2014 resolution on specific actions in the common fisheries policy (CFP) to develop the role of women, Parliament adopted a resolution ‘Fishers for the future‘ on 16 September 2021. The resolution highlights the fact that women still lack sufficient economic and social recognition for their role in fisheries, and calls on the European Commission to launch initiatives to recognise their work and secure equal pay between men and women (not least in view of the 2020‑2025 gender equality strategy), support female entrepreneurship and provide EU funding.

In March 2021, in response to a letter from AKTEA, a European network of women in fisheries and aquaculture, European Commissioner for Environment, Oceans and Fisheries, Virginijus Sinkevičius acknowledged the need for greater recognition of the role of women in fisheries, including in decision-making. The Commissioner highlighted the ongoing efforts to enhance the collection of social data, including data on the role of women, for example in unpaid jobs. These social data would feed into the 2022 review of the common fisheries policy and pave the way for better assessment of the social impacts of fisheries management measures.

In addition, the recent adoption of the fund supporting the common fisheries policy – the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) for 2021‑2027 – allows EU countries to continue to finance measures that support women in the seafood sector. As part of the EMFAF programme, the Commission has also announced that it will launch a call for projects in 2022, to support women in the ‘blue economy’.

The European Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries has also reaffirmed its commitment to address gender inequality issues, by organising a debate on ‘gender equality in fisheries‘ on 28 October 2021, during the European Gender Equality Week.

For more background information and analysis, see our topical digest on women in fisheries, prepared for the European Gender Equality Week (25‑28 October 2021).

Written by Gianluca Quaglio with Marcos Fernández Álvarez.

Nanoparticles lie at the heart of a new method for delivering medicines inside the body – and they were crucial to the success of the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines. This new drug delivery method and others could transform the way we treat disease, potentially boosting the treatment of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and HIV, among others. Insulin and Covid-19 vaccines might even become available as pills. Can the European Union stay on top of this trend? And what challenges lie ahead?

Developing a vaccine usually takes more than 10 years. But when the Covid-19 pandemic hit, vaccines were rolled out at an unprecedented speed. China notified the WHO of a cluster of cases of pneumonia on 31 December 2019. Less than one year later, the EU regulator approved the BioNTech-Pfizer mRNA vaccine. Moderna’s version – another mRNA vaccine – followed two weeks later.

First proposed in the 1990s, medical use of mRNA vaccines was only made possible by recent advances in drug delivery. These vaccines contain a set of ‘instructions’ (mRNA) that tell cells how to produce viral proteins, which then trigger an immune response. Getting highly delicate mRNA into cells is far from easy, however. To protect the mRNA and facilitate its delivery, scientists encapsulated it in tiny lipid nanoparticles; without these, the BioNTech-Pfizer and Moderna vaccines would not exist.

These mRNA vaccines exemplify a crucial issue in drug development: finding effective drugs is only part of the task. Pharmacologists also need to find ways to deliver them to the parts of the body where they are needed. Tablets and capsules are easy and convenient, but many drugs (such as insulin) degrade rapidly in the gastrointestinal tract. These drugs are administered by injection, an unpleasant method with poor patient compliance. In addition, therapeutic agents in pills and injections are transported by the circulatory system, and often reach the whole body. This increases the risk of side-effects. Many otherwise effective drugs are discarded on account of their unacceptable side effects. Designing these drugs to reach only their intended site of action could unleash their potential.

Until the Covid-19 pandemic, drug delivery had not witnessed a breakthrough for a few decades. That could be about to change. Nanotechnology, new materials and novel devices promise to revolutionise the field.

Potential impacts and developments

Drug delivery refers to methods and devices for transporting medicines to their targets inside the body. The ideal drug delivery method releases the ingredient exactly where it is needed: to the whole body or targeted at certain sites. It also controls the rate and time of release – sometimes extending over long periods of time.

Implantable devices can release drugs at a defined rate for weeks or even months. They also offer targeted delivery, thereby reducing the risk of side effects. Implantable devices have been used in contraception and cancer treatment, but their potential is much wider. US researchers have developed an implantable capsule that uses thousands of nanochannels to control the drug release rate, and could be used to treat HIV for a year. Coupled with 3D printing, implantable devices could be personalised further to meet individual patients’ needs.

The delivery of drugs to the brain is a major challenge in drug development. The blood-brain barrier (BBB), which consists primarily of closely wedged endothelial cells lining the interior of the capillaries that connect the bloodstream to brain tissue, prevents toxins and pathogens from reaching the brain. It is also impenetrable for many drugs. Yet delivering drugs past the BBB is crucial to treating neurodegenerative diseases, such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. Focused ultrasounds can be used to disrupt the BBB temporarily; this method can be enhanced through combination with the intravenous administration of microbubbles. Electric pulses can also be used to create micro-and nanopores to allow therapeutic ingredients to pass to the brain. Alternatively, the nasal route can be used to bypass the blood-brain barrier.

About 60 million Europeans have diabetes and many of them require regular insulin injections. Developing oral forms of insulin would significantly improve their quality of life and enhance patient compliance. Unfortunately, insulin and similar drugs (biologics, i.e. substances consisting of a living organism or its products) are highly susceptible to degradation in the gastrointestinal tract. Furthermore, unlike most oral medications, these are big molecules that are not easily absorbed by the intestine. To overcome these barriers, pharmacologists are seeking to improve biologics’ stability. They are also working on coatings to protect the drug cargo, and permeation enhancers to temporarily increase permeability across the intestine. On this note, some researchers claim that the next Covid-19 vaccine could be taken as a pill.

Nanomedicine is often seen as the technology destined to revolutionise drug delivery. Nanoparticles smaller than 100 nanometres (1 000 times smaller than a human hair) could soon make it possible to reach targets previously considered ‘undruggable’. They could also combine diagnostics and medical treatment in a single drug (theranostics), and help break the BBB.

However, nanoparticles have faced increased criticism in recent years. Promising results on mice in the 1990s persuaded researchers that a breakthrough in cancer treatment was easily within reach and public bodies devoted significant funding to it. Two decades later, that promise has yet to materialise. Cancer treatment still relies mainly on radiotherapy and chemotherapy. In 2018, only 34 nanomedicines were approved in the EU. Some researchers openly questioned whether nanoparticles would ever deliver, and highlighted the risk of overfunding this research at the expense of other promising technologies.

In the end, nanoparticles were vindicated, not by a breakthrough in cancer therapy – but by the overwhelming success of mRNA vaccines. There are hopes that this success will precede many others. The sequencing of the human genome has enabled the development of large numbers of drugs based on peptides and proteins. Delivering these molecules will be more challenging than delivering conventional drugs, and nanoparticles could be the enabling technology to make this happen. Nanoparticles could also be crucial in gene therapy.

Anticipatory policy-making

In 2020, the global market for advanced drug delivery systems amounted to US$231 billion, and this figure is expected to rise to US$310 billion by 2025. The EU is second to the US in the global pharmaceutical market, and access to quality healthcare is the third most pressing concern of European citizens. Technological advances could soon transform traditional drug delivery, and proactive policy-making could help the EU stay on top of these developments. The European Commission and EU Member States invested heavily in research on nanoparticles, which were ultimately crucial for mRNA vaccines. Nevertheless, to date, nanoparticles have not delivered in the area where they were most promising: cancer therapy. Additional research and efforts are needed in this regard.

The advent of cheaper, safer and more effective ways to deliver gene therapy could boost ‘biohacking‘ and transhumanism. Although governments do have legal tools to curb practices that endanger public health and several EU Member States ban genome editing outside licensed laboratories, emerging technologies could fall in legal grey zones, raising new ethical dilemmas, and making government oversight even more difficult. These are the challenges that policy-makers could be facing shortly; evidence-informed foresight and preparedness are key to providing effective responses.

Read the complete briefing on ‘What if novel drug delivery methods revolutionised medicine?‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘What if novel drug delivery methods revolutionised medicine?’ on YouTube.

Written by Katrien Luyten.

The EU is an important market for illicit drugs, both in terms of consumption and production. An estimated 28.9 % of European adults aged 15-65 have used illicit drugs at least once in their lifetime, a majority of them being men. Cannabis remains by far the most used drug, followed by cocaine, MDMA (ecstasy or molly) and amphetamines. Illicit drugs have been claiming an increasing number of lives in the EU since 2012, but their impact goes far beyond the harm caused by their use.

The illicit drugs market is the largest criminal market in the EU, with an estimated minimum retail value of €30 billion per year in the EU alone. Over a third of the organised crime groups active in the EU are involved in the trade in illicit drugs, which, besides generating massive criminal profits and inflicting substantial harm, incites associated violence. Drug markets furthermore have links with wider criminal activity, including terrorism; they have a negative impact on the legal economy and communities, cause environmental damage and can fuel corruption and undermine governance.

Illicit drugs have been trafficked into and through the EU for decades, but they are also produced in the EU, for both local and global markets, as is the case of cannabis and synthetic drugs such as amphetamines. In fact, the trade in synthetic drugs in the EU is unique compared to other substances as the production of these drugs and new psychoactive substances in most cases takes place in the EU. In 2019, around 1.1 million seizures of illicit drugs were reported in the EU-27 plus Norway, Turkey and the UK. The European drug market has been remarkably resilient to disruption caused by the coronavirus pandemic.

Although the EU Member States carry the primary responsibility for developing their drug policy and legislation, cross-border cooperation is paramount in the fight against illicit drugs. With the problem constantly expanding in scale and complexity, the EU has been increasingly active since the early 1990s, in particular with respect to law enforcement, health-related issues and the detection and risk assessment of new psychoactive substances.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Understanding the EU’s response to drugs‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘Understanding the EU’s response to illicit drugs’ on YouTube.

Written by Suzana Anghel with Mauro Borghetto.

The EU leaders met on 5 October 2021 in Brdo pri Kranju, Slovenia, to discuss informally the Union’s role in the world over a working dinner. The meeting was coupled with an EU-Western Balkan Summit the next day. The focus at the dinner was on security and defence in the context of the ‘Strategic Compass’ process, to be finalised by March 2022, with EU leaders agreeing to continue deepening defence cooperation, not least by strengthening the alliance with NATO. The leaders also confirmed their 2019-2024 strategic agenda commitment to strengthen the EU’s capacity to ‘act autonomously’, albeit without agreeing on the modalities. Building unity was central to this preparatory summit. Migration and energy were also raised briefly, but will be addressed in greater detail at future meetings. The EU-Western Balkans Summit on 6 October highlighted the strategic importance of the region for the Union. The focus was on the common commitment to socio-economic recovery and the development of the Western Balkans in the post-pandemic phase, with €30 billion mobilised for investment as part of the economic and investment plan for the Western Balkans. EU leaders also focused on ways to strengthen political dialogue and security cooperation. The ‘Brdo Declaration’ reaffirmed the region’s European perspective and the EU’s commitment to enlargement, with the caveats of ‘credible reforms’, ‘rigorous conditionality’ and that the assessment of individual countries’ progress on the basis of the ‘principle of own merits’.

1.     Background

The 2021-22 indicative Leaders’ Agenda included an informal dinner of the members of the European Council on 5 October 2021, followed the next day by an EU-Western Balkans Summit. The two events, held in Brdo pri Kranju, were chaired by the President of the European Council, Charles Michel, and hosted by the Prime Minister of Slovenia, Janez Janša, in the framework of the current six-month Slovenian Presidency of the Council of the European Union.

2. Informal European Council meeting

The European Council does not adopt conclusions at its informal meetings. Yet, for the second time, President Michel issued ‘oral conclusions’, building on a practice he established in January 2021 in the context of the coronavirus pandemic. The document – combining conclusions and post-summit remarks – sets out a schedule for forthcoming security and defence debates (see Table 1).

Policy areaActionActorScheduleEnergy*Debate on energy market and pricesEuropean CouncilOctober 2021Security and defenceStrategic compass process follow-upEuropean CouncilDecember 2021Security and defenceStrategic compass expected to be endorsedEuropean CouncilMarch 2022Table 1 – New European Council commitments and requests with a specific timeline Leaders’ Agenda: Gradual revival of a working method

The Brdo pri Kranju meeting might be a turning point in Charles Michel’s Presidency of the European Council, as far as the European Council’s working methods are concerned. So far, since he took office in December 2019, two Leaders’ Agenda documents have been presented – in October 2020 and June 2021. They have been used largely as work programmes, indicating the items that could feature on the European Council’s agenda during a set period of time. However, the rationale behind the first Leaders’ Agenda presented back in 2017 by the then President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, was to offer both a work programme and a working method for the European Council.

The Leaders’ Agenda working method originally consisted of circulating a Leader’s Note on a subject which the European Council would first discuss informally with a view to building consensus on the substance and sometimes on the language. The outcome of that discussion would then be enshrined in conclusions, which EU leaders would usually adopt at their next formal meeting. The entire process relied on a key element– unity – built informally within the European Council. In his invitation to the informal meeting in Brdo pri Kranju, Charles Michel indicated that what he intended to achieve was unity on ways to tackle the global challenges facing the EU. Although no Leaders’ Note was circulated ahead of the meeting, the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Mark Rutte, summed up the meeting as ‘a brainstorming debate – and very useful’.

The partial revival of the Leader’s Agenda working method allowed President Michel to remain master of the agenda and avoid the sharp divisions sparked, for example, by the strategic debate on relations with Russia held in June 2021. A Leaders’ Note would not have guaranteed more rapid consensus-building, but could have helped to structure the debate.

Main results of the informal European Council meeting

The indicative agenda mentioned China and trade. The President, Charles Michel, used his invitation letter to further develop the agenda, and to announce that the EU leaders would ‘have a strategic discussion on the role of the Union on the international stage in light of recent developments in Afghanistan, the AUKUS security partnership and the evolution of our relations with China’. He thus centred the debate on core foreign and security policy issues.

EU’s role in the world

EU leaders held a debate on the EU’s global role, considering the Union’s strengths and weaknesses, as well as its ability to defend its values and pursue its interests. On strengths, the European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, reminded the meeting that the EU was ‘the world’s biggest trading bloc’, a front-runner in the fight against climate change and a respected ‘normative power’, by setting standards, for example, in the digital field, that give high consideration to the individual. As to weaknesses, President Michel stressed the European Council’s commitment to reducing dependencies and achieving resilience in areas such as energy, cybersecurity and external trade.

Mr Michel recalled the consensus, brokered in the 2019-2024 strategic agenda, on the need to increase the EU’s ‘capacity to act autonomously’. He also stressed the importance of a ‘more assertive and effective’ Union benefiting from strong strategic partnerships, such as the transatlantic one. Nevertheless, EU leaders did not clarify how the EU could increase its ‘capacity to act autonomously’ in or across different policy areas. This aspect may however be tackled subsequently as part of forthcoming sectoral policy debates following which the European Council could be expected to set new strategic orientation guidelines. For now, the EU leaders largely reiterated some of their past statements. For example, on trade and international relations, they reaffirmed the EU’s commitment to multilateralism and to a rules-based international order, rejecting ‘protectionism’, calling for reciprocity and a level playing field in global trade. China, the only global power to feature in the President’s ‘oral conclusions’, was described in the terms used in the 2019 EU-China strategy, namely ‘as a competitor, a partner and a systemic rival’.

The French President, Emmanuel Macron, considered the summit to be a stepping-stone to enable EU leaders to advance in their reflection on the Union’s role in the world, while stressing that the EU needed to reflect on its relations with its neighbours, including Russia and Turkey. He also emphasised the need to look at relations with the US ‘with lucidity’, but recalled the common history and the bond linking the US to its European allies. The High Representative, Josep Borrell, spoke of the geopolitical shifts and the increasing US-China bi-polarity. He stressed the need for the EU to create a common strategic culture to enable it to respond to common challenges.

Security and defence: Focus on the strategic compass

Recent developments in Afghanistan and the AUKUS security partnership, although important, were not the focus but rather the enabler of the security and defence debate. The debate centred on the strategic compass process, which has entered its final phase (drafting and adoption) (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 – Strategic compass timeline

The European Council held an initial debate on the strategic compass in February 2021. EU leaders were then presented with the results of the first-ever EU threat assessment. This allowed them to be closely associated with the process from the early stages and to avoid being presented only with the end result, as had largely been the case with the EU Global Strategy back in 2016. This approach might allow them to seek political consensus and ultimately arrive at an inclusive end result.

Three elements are worth highlighting. First, the Strategic Compass exercise is on track and expected to be completed by March 2022, and the European Council is eager to ‘steer the process’. Second, there is political agreement among EU leaders on the need to continue deepening European defence cooperation. Third, EU leaders have reaffirmed the importance of working with partners, including NATO, a ‘cornerstone’ of EU security. A new EU-NATO declaration is being prepared ahead of the June 2022 NATO summit, and EU leaders had a preliminary discussion on this subject too. The Prime Minister of Latvia, Krišjānis Karinš, stressed that the main question EU leaders faced was how to make the EU and the Member States stronger within existing alliances.

Migration

The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, warned her colleagues of a possible new migratory wave. The European Council agreed to return to migration at one of its next meetings. The European Commission will soon present a proposal for a revision of the Schengen Borders Code. This was originally expected for the second quarter of 2021, and is now envisaged for November 2021.

Energy prices

Energy was raised briefly in the context of the rise in prices in recent months, which was denounced by five Member States – Czechia, Spain, France, Greece and Romania – in a common statement. The European Council last discussed the issue back in 2014, when it stressed the importance of ensuring ‘affordable energy prices’. EU leaders are expected to consider this topic at their meeting on 21‑22 October 2021. The European Commission is due to publish a communication on energy prices ahead of that meeting, which will serve as a basis for the debate. President Macron stressed that energy prices were both a global market issue and a geopolitical problem for the EU.

3. EU-Western Balkans summit

EU leaders adopted the Brdo Declaration, in many respects similar to the Sofia Declaration (2018) and the Zagreb Declaration (2020). On a political level, the three declarations confirm the European perspective of the Western Balkans. The EU’s commitment to the enlargement process is mentioned in the Brdo Declaration, with the caveat that countries in the region should stay on course for reforms, with fair and rigorous conditionality to be applied as well as assessment according to individual merits. Ursula von der Leyen confirmed the European Commission’s attachment to the enlargement process, whereas Charles Michel noted the EU Member States’ focus being on the EU’s inner reforms in the context of the Conference on the Future of Europe, before further enlarging the Union. The declaration states that the EU is ‘the region’s closest partner, main investor and principal donor’. In this context see Figure 2.

Figure 2 – EU trade with, and aid to, the Western Balkans

In a letter to Charles Michel, the President of the European Parliament, David Sassoli, stressed that ‘the accession process of the countries of the Western Balkans needs a new and strong impetus’ and that ‘current blockages’ need to be overcome. The EU has offered to facilitate the process and help foster dialogue between Bulgaria and North Macedonia in order to overcome the current deadlock. Solving border disputes and minority rights were two other issues on which further work was required. No accession date was set. The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, said that she did not ‘really believe in setting dates’, but rather in keeping promises once conditions are met.

Read this briefing on ‘Outcome of the meetings of EU leaders in Brdo pri Kranju on 5-6 October 2021‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Annastiina Papunen (Directorate-General for Internal Policies / AIDA Committee secretariat).

As a general-purpose technology, artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to reshape societies and humanity itself. To shed light on current and future AI developments, EPRS organised an online policy roundtable to discuss ‘How will Artificial Intelligence change humanity? Exploring the social and political implications of our digital futures’, on 29 September 2021. The inspiration for the discussion came from a report entitled ‘Humans and Societies in the Age of Artificial Intelligence‘, written by two distinguished experts, Vladimir Sucha from UNESCO and Jean‑Philippe Gammel from the European Commission. EPRS Director-General Anthony Teasdale opened the event.

‘This transformation is changing everything,’ keynote speaker Eva Kaili (S&D, Greece) said, adding that she was glad to see several new aspects of the AI revolution covered in the report. Diving further into the AI transition, Eva Kaili stressed that it is important to understand the challenges, to look at how to address them proactively, to ensure that ‘AI is for good’. Facial and emotion recognition technology for example are potentially harmful applications, as they may lead to manipulation of human behaviour – even to an erosion of fundamentals such as freedom of choice and of thought. Highlighting the pioneering work carried out by STOA and the Centre for AI, Eva Kaili highlighted the need for international cooperation to ensure the ethical use of AI. She concluded with an interesting note: if creativity is no longer only a human skill, but something AI can also master, what will this mean for humanity?

• keynote speaker Eva Kaili (S&D, Greece)

‘Transformation, transformation, transformation’ – is the main message of the report. The swift and fundamental AI transformation is unprecedented in human history, and according to Vladimir Sucha, the positive as well as the negative changes could have a profound and disruptive effect on our lives and societies. An audience poll resulted in 50 % of the respondents saying they strongly or somewhat agreed with the statement that ‘AI is triggering the deepest and the fastest shift humanity has ever experienced’. Machines are already better than people at recognising human emotions, and as 85 % of human decisions are based on emotion, a majority of decisions may be manipulated through AI in the future, warned Vladimir Sucha. Furthermore, creativity is no longer a human prerogative, as illustrated by an op-ed in the Guardian, written by the language model GPT-3. The future will also see AI cognitive extenders, brain computer interfaces and digital immortality, which may lead to ‘superhumans’ with powers and capabilities beyond normal people’s reach. Up to 25 % of young people are reporting mental issues, and we should investigate the causal link between this and digitalisation. As a final point Vladimir Sucha noted that our best bet to be ready for future and to ‘not let others write it for us’ is to invest in education, psychological resilience and ‘EMC2′ – which stands for ’empathy, mindfulness, critical inquiry and compassion’.

An expert panel delved deeper into these themes, moderated by the Head of Unit at Parliament’s AIDA special committee, Marcus Scheuren. Heather Grabbe from the Open Society European Policy Institute, referred to Professor Hariri’s book, Homo Deus, noting that ‘It is important to see AI not as a series of technical issues, but ones that will deeply affect democracy and even what it means to be human. People are beginning to become concerned, and rightly so, about how automated decision-making will affect their lives’. Heather Grabbe also stressed that it is essential to ensure that AI reflects our values and to address structural discrimination immediately. She also advocated involving people in decision-making as a way to increase trust in technology.

According to Professor Andrea Renda, the best way to understand humans in the age of AI is to see how humans have adapted to technology in the past. As an example, he mentioned the emergence of photography and how painters reacted by moving to more abstract forms of art. He also spoke about the importance of the internet of things (IoT) revolution in the AI context, as by 2035 there may be as many as a trillion connected devices, creating a fifth element, an ‘information and data envelope’ around us. Regarding regulation specifically, Professor Renda said that the proposed AI Act is a very good start, as strong governance of AI is essential. Finally, he stressed that it is important to discuss these things together before ‘the utopia of how AI will empower us will turn to a dystopia where AI will kill us’. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)’s Anthony Gooch called for a rethink of the notion of wellbeing in the light of digital transformation. To start the process, the OECD has begun to explore what quality of life means in the digital age, and Anthony Gooch highlighted that ‘we need to measure what we treasure’. Bruegel’s Laura Nurski added that ‘non-profit concerns’, such as environmental, social, psychological and wellbeing issues, are often not included in algorithmic decision-making, which is problematic. Stressing that as long as humans decide what to optimise, Laura Nurski noted that it is vital to incorporate ‘good targets’ into algorithms. She advocated for careful consideration of which decisions are handed over to AI, as autonomy and decision-making skills are essential for humans, and if we stop making decisions and practising – we may lose our ability to decide.

The questions from the audience revolved around the concepts of intelligence, creativity, being human or superhuman and digital immortality. Jean‑Philippe Gammel, co-author of the report, raised the question of whether we could consider a machine as an artist. If people are not aware of who created the artwork, they cannot distinguish the work of a machine from the work of a human, but if people know the creator was AI, they will often say that the art ‘lacks soul’. The issue is no longer a scientific question, but has become a philosophical one.

Written by Agnieszka Widuto.

In line with its commitments under the Paris Agreement on climate change, in 2019 the EU adopted an ambitious strategy for reaching climate neutrality by 2050: the European Green Deal. The significant reduction of greenhouse gas emissions needed to achieve it will require profound social and economic changes, while ensuring a socially fair and just transition.

As climate change is linked to the greenhouse effect, the EU’s actions for reducing emissions involve greening high-emissions sectors such as fossil fuels-based energy, transport, agriculture, manufacturing and waste management. Triggered by climate change, heatwaves, water stress, wildfires, coastal flooding and extreme weather events affect EU regions with varying degrees of severity and will require a tailored approach to mitigation.

The transition towards climate neutrality cannot be achieved through environmental policies alone. Cohesion policy, which accounts for about one third of the EU budget, supports this process by earmarking funding for climate action, for ‘climate proofing’ investments and for implementing specific actions in EU regions. In addition to the traditional cohesion policy funds (European Regional Development Fund, Cohesion Fund and European Social Fund Plus), a new Just Transition Fund will support the transition in regions relying on fossil fuels and high-emissions industries over the period of 2021-2027. Moreover, one out of the five cohesion policy objectives in the current funding period is entirely dedicated to a greener Europe and fosters investment in clean energy, the circular economy, climate change mitigation and sustainable transport. As the main goal of cohesion policy is to prevent the widening of disparities, it can thus help support those regions that bear the heaviest burden of the transition and make sure that no region is left behind.

Local and regional authorities across the EU are also working together to tackle climate challenges by participating in the European Climate Pact and in initiatives such as the Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy, Mayors Alliance for the European Green Deal, and Green Deal Going Local.

Read the complete briefing on ‘The European Green Deal and cohesion policy‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Katarzyna Sochacka and Clare Ferguson.

During the first plenary session of October 2021 in Strasbourg, Parliament held a number of debates, in particular on the proposed EU Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority, which should ensure a coordinated EU approach for future health crises. Debate also took place on possible European solutions to the rise in energy prices for businesses and consumers and the role of energy efficiency and renewable energy, highlighting the need to tackle energy poverty. Members discussed the release of the Pandora Papers and the implications for efforts to combat money laundering, tax evasion and avoidance.

Debates were held on several human rights issues, including the humanitarian situation in Tigray. Members heard a statement from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the Commission, Josep Borrell, on the situation in Belarus following the violent repression of protest in the country.

A number of resolutions and legislative acts were adopted, inter alia on artificial intelligence in criminal law, the EU road safety policy framework 2021‑2030, the Aarhus Regulation on access to information and public participation in environmental matters, on the state of EU cyber-defence capabilities, and on the Banking Union annual report 2020.

European Union Agency for Asylum

A compromise agreement reached on the proposal to revise the regulation on the European Union Agency for Asylum (EASO) is an important step forward in building future common European migration and asylum policy. Members debated the compromise reached by negotiators from the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE), in which Parliament successfully championed a stronger EASO mission, including support for processing asylum applications and addressing the root causes of migration in third countries. The reinforced role agreed for EASO includes a stronger focus on protection of fundamental rights, with the agency expected to engage a fundamental rights officer, a pool of 500 experts, a new complaints mechanism, and to step up the frequency of its monitoring of Member States’ implementation of the common European asylum system. The vote on this report will be held at a future part-session.

Future of EU-US relations

Following a debate, Members voted on a Foreign Affairs (AFET) Committee report on the future of EU-US relations – a topic that has often hit the headlines in recent weeks – by a very large majority. The rapid US withdrawal from Afghanistan, with fears of large-scale refugee movements to neighbouring countries, is just one of the issues to have caused difficulties in transatlantic relations in recent months. The AFET report acknowledged the recent divergences between the transatlantic partners, but nevertheless called on them to take advantage of their strong partnership, based on shared values, to strengthen multilateralism. While the EU seeks to become more self-reliant in security and defence matters, considerable room remains for common action on foreign policy, security and economic objectives.

EU cyber defence capabilities

Parliament debated and voted on another AFET committee report, again with a large majority, on the state of EU cyber-defence capabilities. Threats to society have become increasingly digital as malicious cyber-actors, from lone wolves to states themselves, have taken advantage of the vulnerabilities introduced by digitalisation to wage ‘cyber war’. Indeed, calls for a European cyber-defence policy and for a cyber-resilience act were made as recently as during last month’s State of the Union debate. The AFET report proposes to strengthen EU cyber-defence capabilities through strong cooperation, both with NATO and internally, with the ongoing Strategic Compass process providing an opportunity to reduce the current fragmentation in the EU’s cyber-defence architecture.

EU policy on harmful tax practices

Global tax reform is another hot topic on the EU-US agenda. Tax evasion and aggressive tax planning exacerbate social inequalities and disrupt competition, all of which – particularly since the pandemic – has led to increasing demands from both public and parliaments to address the issue more forcefully. With EU policy reform on harmful tax practices more prominent on the agenda, Parliament held a debate, followed by a vote on a report from the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON). Among other things, the report recommends that further negotiations are based on the G7 commitment to ‘a global minimum tax of at least 15 % on a country by country basis’. The report also urges revision of the Code of Conduct Group on Business Taxation and calls for fairer and more transparent tax incentives.

Artificial intelligence in criminal law

Members debated and voted on a Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) Committee own-initiative report on police and judicial authorities’ use of AI in criminal matters. Underlining the need to preserve Europeans’ fundamental rights when AI is used in law enforcement and criminal justice, the report notably calls for a ban on facial recognition systems in law enforcement. While the possibilities that artificial intelligence (AI) affords to tackle cyber and other security situations could improve prevention and detection of crime, its use comes with other clear dangers to fundamental rights, as can be seen in countries that have taken this path.

The Arctic: Opportunities, concerns and security challenges

The Arctic region is rich in natural resources, including hydrocarbons, and yet paradoxically also faces both opportunities and vulnerabilities brought about by climate change. Parliament debated and voted on a Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET) own-initiative report (with a draft recommendation to other European institutions under Rule 118) on the Arctic region. The report supports the EU strategy in the Arctic, and calls for the region to remain a zone of peaceful cooperation, warning of the growing risk of confrontation in the region as Russia and China eye the opportunities of easier access to shipping lanes and natural resources such as rare earths and fisheries. The AFET committee is particularly concerned about the environmental and security impacts of such economic activity, both for biodiversity and for the four million people who live in the eight countries that cover the Arctic region – particularly indigenous communities.

EU-Greenland Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement

Greenland plays a specific geostrategic role in the Arctic and the North Atlantic, not least when it comes to the region’s fisheries. Members considered the renewal of the key protocol under the EU-Greenland Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement (SFPA), regulating the sustainable exchange of quotas between Greenland, Norway and the Faroe Islands. As the protocol expired in 2020, Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries (PECH) recommended its renewal, while calling for improved data collection and sustainable management of stocks fished by the EU. The renewal was approved by an overwhelming majority.

Opening of trilogue negotiations

Members confirmed one mandate for negotiations from the Industry Research and Energy (ITRE) Committee on the proposal for a regulation on guidelines for the trans-European energy infrastructure.

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

Written by Andres Garcia Higuera, Sorina Silvia Ionescu, Nera Kuljanic, Henrique André Morgado Simões, Eric Pichon, Jaan Soone, Yann-Sven Rittelmeyer, Eckhard Werner Binder and Ionel Zamfir.

Cities are inevitably affected by shocks and disruptions, the coronavirus pandemic being a case in point. The extent of the impact however depends on cities’ preparedness and capacity to adapt. Forward thinking is needed to explore emerging or plausible developments so that they can be anticipated and their disruptive nature contained. Both short- and long-term challenges can be better overcome through the use of foresight analysis and resilience.

Taking the policy approach recommended by the European Commission’s 2020 Strategic Foresight Report and drawing on the ‘Global Trends to 2030: Challenges and Choices for Europe’ report from the European Strategy and Policy Analysis System (ESPAS), this EPRS paper looks at developments expected in cities as a result of current global trends, and reflects on the impacts, implications, opportunities and challenges for urban resilience.

The global trends identified relate to climate change, population growth, urbanisation, economic growth, increasing energy demand, higher connectivity, and a changing world order. They will have direct consequences for the future of cities and their inhabitants and may affect their resilience in key areas such as: urban governance, urban living, the urban economy and urban mobility. A reflection on the future of urban growth in the world completes the analysis.

Some of the main lessons that can be drawn from the study are summed up below:

• Urban governance: cities need to be better able to act autonomously and better organised (through network cooperation, exchange of good practice, etc.) in order to tackle challenges such as climate change and migration. Growing urban populations, combined with digitalisation and populism, are shaping local democracy. Appropriate mechanisms and instruments to support the relationship between a city and its inhabitants have to be in place for the development of harmonious and inclusive cities.
• Urban spaces and housing: climate change has consequences for cities – for instance in terms of social, demographic and technological developments – that require urban planners and decision-makers to react. Making the best use of new technologies and digitalisation, while keeping in mind the social dimension, will be crucial for the future of urban life. By doing so, the ongoing urbanisation can lead to more socially equal cities, offering an energy-efficient environment.
• Urban economy and work: economies globally and at the level of cities are being affected by the digital and green transitions. This will bring opportunities for growth, innovation and diversification, potentially improving cities’ ability to withstand economic shocks, but will also open economies to new vulnerabilities, such as network failures and cyber-attacks. These transformations will also likely come with significant disruptions in terms of job losses in sectors with a larger environmental footprint and in sectors where automation can replace tasks previously done by people. New services will also have a disruptive impact on a number of incumbent service providers. Social cohesion and urban resilience will depend to a large extent on how these transitions are managed through national governments’ labour market policies, but can also be improved by cities themselves tackling inequality.
• Urban mobility: trends affecting urban transportation (climate change, digitalisation, technological advances) lead to developments with varying effects. New transport options (electric vehicles, automated vehicles, shared mobility, etc.) can be positive for the resilience of cities by providing alternatives in cases of systemic disruptions but can also be disruptive to the existing systems. Similarly, digitalisation allows for better access to mobility services, thereby bolstering cohesion and inclusiveness, but also makes transport systems more susceptible to network failures and cyber-attacks.
• Urban growth in the world: several issues and questions are raised by unabating urbanisation, with megacities continuing to expand, in particular in Africa and Asia. Despite a robust economic and financial outlook, megacities need to strengthen their sustainability in the face of multiple social and environmental challenges. Their scale exposes them to various crises, but they have shown remarkable resilience in recent times. Urban planners and decision-makers are also looking for alternatives by creating new cities from scratch, based on sustainability concepts.

Read the complete study on ‘Cities in a globalised world: Exploring trends and the effect on urban resilience‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

• Existing and future megacities in the world by 2035
• EU car fleet projected development with policies geared to climate targets
• Urban dwelling types
• Models of representative deliberative processes
• Most reliable level of government, by country

Written by Christiaan Van Lierop.

Not many events on the EU policy calendar attract over 10 000 participants – but then again few events can truly rival the European Week of Regions and Cities in terms of numbers, impact and reach. After all, this annual four-day fixture has grown to become the world’s largest gathering of local and regional stakeholders, with the event a byword for regional expertise. This year’s edition, which will be held from 11 to 14 October 2021, is certainly no exception.

Taking place as an online only event for the second year running, the 2021 European Week of Regions and Cities will focus on four themes, organised under the headline banner of ‘Together for Recovery’: green transition, cohesion, digital transition, and citizens’ engagement. With the negotiations on the post-2020 multiannual financial framework (MFF) and cohesion policy framework completed and an ambitious recovery plan in place to support EU growth, this year’s event offers a key platform for EU regions and cities to share their experiences and consider how the post-2020 MFF and recovery package can make a real difference on the ground. Providing fertile ground for in-depth discussion and debate, the EPRS is delighted to be part of the conversation once again.

As in previous years, the EPRS has published a topical digest linked to the event. Drafted exclusively to tie in with the 2021 European Week of Regions and Cities, this publication includes a selection of briefings and studies published by the European Parliament on many of the major issues under discussion, such as the recovery plan for Europe, sustainable and smart mobility or smart villages to name a few. But our involvement in this year’s EU regions week doesn’t just stop there.

For the sixth year running, EPRS will be organising a workshop on research as part of the EU RegionsWeek College. Entitled ‘Research for policy impact: the European Parliament‘, the workshop will examine how EPRS supports the work of the Members of the European Parliament during the policy-making process and discuss how to forge closer ties between academic researchers and policy-makers in the EU institutions. Once again, our workshop will be open to all, not just to early-career researchers and students, providing us with an exciting platform to talk about the work of the EPRS. What’s more, we have gone one better this year, and will be organising not one but two workshops.

Organised jointly with our partners the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and United Cities and Local Governments, our workshop on pathways towards resilience: the future of EU urban areas, including mid-sized cities will examine the challenges and global trends affecting urban areas, and discuss how to increase their resilience, bringing together urban experts and political practitioners. With the event showcasing an EPRS publication prepared specially for this event on Cities in a globalised world, we will once again be on hand to engage with participants and share our expertise, staying true to our EPRS motto of ‘Empowering through knowledge’.

Written by Tania Latici and Elena Lazarou.

As Member States encounter increasingly complex security threats, momentum to push for EU initiatives to deliver on the Union’s level of ambition in defence has emerged. A process aimed at bringing clarity, guidance and incentives to completing the common security and defence policy, the Strategic Compass is a first for the European Union. Announced by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in her 2021 State of the European Union speech, a European Defence Summit is expected to take place in February 2022. It is envisaged that, following its much-anticipated presentation, EU leaders will endorse the Compass in March 2022. European Council President Charles Michel branded 2022 ‘the year of European defence’.

Launched in 2020, developing the Strategic Compass entails a complex strategic reflection, threat analysis and strategic dialogue among Member States. It is structured around four interlinked thematic baskets: crisis management, defence capabilities, resilience, and partnerships. Unlike the 2016 EU Global Strategy, which saw the EU institutions take the lead, this process is Member State-led, with the institutions playing a supporting and coordinating role.

The main challenge of the Strategic Compass appears to be, on the one hand, providing clarity in the EU’s objectives (defining the ends, the ways and the means), and on the other, ensuring Member State ‘buy-in’. The latter is essential for the follow-up to the process, the findings from which should ideally be reflected in national defence planning processes.

The process provides opportunities to improve links between the operational and capability dimensions of EU defence initiatives and external crisis management, to consolidate existing strategic partnerships and rethink the configuration of new ones, and to provide a concrete vision for the commitments made since 2016 to boost the EU as a defence actor. However, experts caution that the Compass risks remaining a paper exercise, should the political will to follow up not materialise.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Where will the EU’s Strategic Compass point?‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

• Strategic Compass process timeline
• Strategic Compass process and its baskets

Written by Angelos Delivorias (1st edition).

Consumer credit is a type of loan allowing consumers to purchase consumer goods and services for which they do not have the funds. It is regulated at national and EU level. The Consumer Credit Directive (CCD), in force since 2008, is the relevant EU-level legislation.

The CCD has undergone several revisions over the past decade, yet growing digitalisation, insufficient harmonisation and issues affecting consumer protection, among other things, have prompted the Commission to publish a proposal for a new directive. This proposal brings crowdfunding into the scope of the CCD, expands and clarifies the definitions, and adds new articles relative to, among other things, new obligations for creditors, tying and bundling practices, ancillary services, advisory services, unsolicited credit sale, conduct of business obligations for creditors and requirements for their staff.

The proposal is part of the Commission’s New Consumer Agenda aimed at updating the overall strategic framework of EU consumer policy. The proposal is currently examined by the co-legislators. Within the European Parliament, the file has been assigned to the IMCO committee. At the moment, no date has been announced for the publication of a draft report.

Versions

• Consumer Credit Directive (1st edition)

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on consumer credits Committee responsible:Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO)COM(2021) 347
30.6.2021Rapporteur:Kateřina Konečná (The Left, Czechia)2021/0171(COD)Shadow rapporteurs:Tomislav Sokol (EPP, Croatia)
Maria-Manuel Leitão-Marques (S&D, Portugal)
Stéphanie Yon-Courtin (Renew, France)
Rasmus Andresen (Greens/EFA, Germany)Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Publication of draft report

Citizens often turn to the European Parliament to ask what the European Union does to support mental health. Policies and services addressing mental health are the responsibility of individual EU countries. However, the need to include support for good mental health remains among the priorities on the public health agenda at EU level.

Action taken by Parliament

Members of the European Parliament have posted numerous parliamentary questions to the European Commission on this subject.

In a question of April 2020, a Member asked when the Commission intends to put an EU Mental Health Strategy in place. The Commission replied, inter alia, that good mental health is a priority topic for the Steering Group on Health Promotion, Disease Prevention and Management of Non-Communicable Diseases. As a reply to a follow-up question in August 2020, the Commission added that it acknowledges the high importance of mental health, as a result of the coronavirus pandemic and ‘has taken additional steps to strengthen mental health in all policies approach, both via creating synergies within the Commission as well as through its support for stakeholders’.

Some Members have joined together to form platforms promoting mental health. Examples include the Coalition for Mental Health and Wellbeing in the European Parliament, a group amplifying the voices of people with mental health problems and advocating for a coordinated response on the determinants of mental health, or the MEP Alliance for Mental Health, a platform bringing together Members and stakeholders to promote EU policies in the field of mental illness.

Mental health during the coronavirus pandemic

EU4Health is the EU’s response to coronavirus. It will provide funding to EU countries, health organisations and NGOs. Funding will be open for applications in 2021. The programme describes mental health as one of the challenges in health security and health systems.

The Commission has created an interactive tool, the EU Health Policy Platform, to facilitate knowledge exchange and develop guidance on public health. The tool addresses many of the concerns related to mental health and specifically consequences of the coronavirus pandemic.

In a resolution of July 2020 on the EU’s public health strategy post-coronavirus, the European Parliament calls for a 2021‑2027 EU action plan on mental health, with equal attention being paid to the biomedical and psychosocial factors of poor mental health.

Another July 2020 resolution brings up the rights of persons with intellectual disabilities and their families during the coronavirus crisis. It recalls, inter alia, that a lockdown is a serious problem for persons with intellectual disabilities, as well as for every person with a mental illness, since isolation can aggravate problems.

Further information

• Mental health, European Commission website
• Mental health and the pandemic, Briefing, European Parliament Research Service (EPRS), July 2021
• People living with depression, What Europe does for me (EPRS)
• Spotlight on mental health in Europe, At a glance, European Parliament Research Service (EPRS), October 2016

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

Written by Anja Radjenovic.

The European Union’s objectives in the field of external border protection are to safeguard freedom of movement within the Schengen area (an area without internal borders) and to ensure efficient monitoring of people who cross the EU’s external borders. To strengthen its external borders and prevent irregular migrants from reaching EU territory, the EU has focused on extending its partnerships with third countries as well as on reinforcing and providing its border agencies with stronger means and powers.

Furthermore, a new pact on migration and asylum, presented in 2020 but still the subject of negotiations between the Council of the EU and the European Parliament, introduces a new set of border procedures as a key ‘migration management tool’ in the event of the arrival of a large number of asylum applicants from third countries.

When conducting border management and immigration control, states’ authorities need to respect international legal requirements that protect the human rights of non-nationals who are subjected to border checks, by providing effective remedies for human rights violations at borders, such as a possibility to lodge an appeal against a decision before a competent, independent and impartial national authority.

At the European and EU level, a range of human rights standards have been developed that regulate the powers of individual states when allowing or refusing entry to irregular immigrants and asylum-seekers and when implementing their expulsion to countries from which they have come or transited on their way.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Effective remedies for asylum-seekers at EU external borders: A new pact on migration and asylum‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Clare Ferguson.

Members travel to Strasbourg once again for the first plenary session of this month, with an agenda that reflects some of the major preoccupations in the world today.

Following a debate scheduled for Tuesday morning, Members are expected to vote on a Foreign Affairs (AFET) Committee report on the future of EU-US relations – a topic that has often hit the headlines in recent weeks. The rapid US withdrawal from Afghanistan, with fears of large-scale refugee movements to neighbouring countries, is just one of the issues to have caused difficulties in transatlantic relations in recent months. The AFET report acknowledges the current divergences between the transatlantic partners, but nevertheless calls on them to take advantage of their strong partnership, based on shared values, to strengthen multilateralism. While the EU seeks to become more self-reliant in security and defence matters, considerable room remains for common action on foreign policy, security and economic objectives.

On security and defence in particular, Members are scheduled to debate another AFET report, on the state of EU cyber-defence capabilities, on Tuesday afternoon. Threats to society have become increasingly digital as malicious cyber-actors, from lone wolves to states themselves, have taken advantage of the vulnerabilities introduced by digitalisation to wage ‘cyber war’. Indeed, calls for a European cyber-defence policy and for a cyber-resilience act were made as recently as during last month’s State of the Union debate. The AFET report proposes to strengthen EU cyber-defence capabilities through strong cooperation, both with NATO and internally, with the ongoing Strategic Compass process providing an opportunity to reduce the current fragmentation in the EU’s cyber-defence architecture.

Taking advantage of the possibilities that artificial intelligence (AI) affords to tackle cyber and other security situations could improve prevention and detection of crime. However, as can be seen in countries that have taken this path, use of AI comes with other clear dangers to fundamental rights. On Monday evening, Members will debate a Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) Committee own-initiative report on police and judicial authorities’ use of AI in criminal matters. Underlining the necessity of preserving Europeans’ fundamental rights in the use of AI in law enforcement and criminal justice, the report notably calls for a ban on facial recognition systems in law enforcement.

Global tax reform is another hot topic on the EU-US agenda. Tax evasion and aggressive tax planning exacerbate social inequalities and disrupt competition, all of which – particularly since the pandemic – has led to increasing demands from both public and parliaments to address the issue more forcefully. To this effect, EU policy reform on harmful tax practices has been pushed up the agenda. On Wednesday afternoon, Parliament is expected to consider a report from the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) that, among other things, recommends that further negotiations are based on the G7 commitment to ‘to a global minimum tax of at least 15 % on a country by country basis’. The report also urges revision of the Code of Conduct Group on Business Taxation and calls for fairer and more transparent tax incentives.

The European Union Agency for Asylum (EASO) assists EU countries to prepare for movements of displaced persons. However, despite Parliament’s backing, a proposal to revise the regulation on the EASO has been pending for some time. A provisional agreement was finally reached in June 2021. On Thursday morning, Parliament will debate and vote on approving the compromise agreement, with the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) having successfully championed a stronger EASO mission, including its support for processing asylum applications and addressing the root causes of migration in third countries. The Committee also sought a stronger focus on protection of fundamental rights at EASO. The agency should have a fundamental rights officer and a new complaints mechanism in future, and step-up the frequency of its monitoring of Member States’ implementation of the Common European Asylum System.

The Arctic region is rich in natural resources, including hydrocarbons, and yet paradoxically also faces both opportunities and vulnerabilities brought about by climate change. Parliament is due to debate a Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET) own-initiative report (with a draft recommendation to the other institutions under Rule 118) on the Arctic region on Tuesday afternoon. The report supports the EU strategy in the Arctic, and calls for the region to remain a zone of peaceful cooperation, warning of the growing risk of confrontation in the region as Russia and China eye the opportunities of easier access to shipping lanes and natural resources such as rare earths and fisheries. The AFET committee is particularly concerned about the environmental and security impacts of such economic activity, both for biodiversity and for the four million people who live in the eight countries that cover the Arctic region – particularly indigenous communities. Greenland plays a specific geostrategic role in the Arctic and the North Atlantic, not least when it comes to the region’s fisheries. Earlier on Tuesday (lunchtime), Parliament is expected to consider the renewal of the key protocol under the EU-Greenland Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement (SFPA), regulating the sustainable exchange of quotas between Greenland, Norway and the Faroe Islands. As the protocol expired in 2020, Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries (PECH) has recommended its renewal, while calling for improved data collection and for stocks fished by the EU to be managed sustainably.

Written by Alex Wilson.

On 14 July 2021 the European Commission adopted the ‘fit for 55’ package with a view to adapting existing EU climate and energy legislation to the new EU objective of a minimum 55 % reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030, in accordance with the new European Climate Law. The fit for 55 package is part of the European Green Deal, a flagship of the von der Leyen Commission that will involve further climate-related legislation and other new initiatives to set the EU firmly on the path towards net zero GHG emissions (climate neutrality) by 2050.   

The fit for 55 package includes a recast of the energy efficiency directive (EED), aligning its provisions to the new -55 % GHG target. The EED currently sets out the level of energy savings that the EU needs to make to meet the agreed goal of 32.5 % energy efficiency improvements by 2030. The recast EED would require Member States to almost double their annual energy savings obligations, leading the way by means of action throughout the public sector, action to address energy poverty, and other measures to help to deliver 9 % more energy savings than envisaged by the existing EED and in the 2021-2030 national energy and climate plans.

The file has been referred to the ITRE committee, where the rapporteur is still preparing his draft report.

Versions

• Revising the Energy Efficiency Directive: Fit for 55 package (1st edition)

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on energy efficiency (recast) Committee responsible:Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE)COM(2021) 558
14.7.2021Rapporteur:Niels Fuglsang (S&D, Denmark)2021/0203(COD)Shadow rapporteurs:Pernille Weiss (EPP, Denmark)Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Initial discussions in committee

Written by Tania Latici with Tristan Krause, EPLO Washington DC.

Geopolitical competition between rival nations and a complex security environment are threatening some of the core values of the transatlantic alliance. The institutions responsible for implementing EU and US security and defence policies aim to protect civilians and to promote rules-based conduct in external action. Against this backdrop, both the EU and US are undertaking significant strategic realignments, as the US shifts from counter-insurgency operations to competing with near-peer powers and the EU moves towards the objective of a defence union and strategic autonomy. Despite the historical transatlantic security and defence relationship, the institutional landscapes of the EU and the US are distinct and complex. This document seeks to give an overview of who does what in security and defence institutions on both sides of the Atlantic.

Background: Strategy and policy

The fundamental difference between the EU and US in their institutional organisation and conduct is that the US is an independent nation with its own defence agencies, whereas in defence policy the EU functions predominantly as an intergovernmental body with emerging elements of supranationalism, seeking to promote joint policies among its Member States. Since 1993, the EU’s collective foreign policy action has been governed by its common foreign and security policy (CFSP). A significant component of the CFSP is common security and defence policy (CSDP), the EU’s policy framework for external security action and defence cooperation and coordination between Member States. Member States are the driving force behind the CFSP and CSDP, with unanimous decisions required for actions in these policy areas. The 2016 EU Global Strategy offers strategic guidelines for foreign, security and defence policy priorities, and has inspired a flurry of successive EU-level defence integration initiatives. Seeking to become a more effective security and defence provider, the EU is working on a ‘strategic compass‘to advance a shared strategic understanding among its members. The EU and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) have built a solid relationship, formalised in two joint declarations outlining common threats and an agenda for cooperation. NATO has welcomed the EU’s commitment to become a stronger defence actor. The US follows the national security strategy (NSS) produced by the executive branch. In March 2021, the Biden Administration released its interim NSS to guide future US foreign policy. The NSS is then refined into the national defence strategy (NDS). Updated every four years (most recently in 2018), the NDS is a comprehensive military planning guide and outlines how the US military will achieve the objectives laid out in the NSS. The US intelligence community traditionally presents an annual threat assessmentto Members of Congress, outlining global threats to US security. The US armed forces are currently conducting a global posture review to match strategy with resources and personnel. EU and US leaders evoked a wish to launch a dedicated dialogue on security and defence following the EU-US summit in June 2021.

Who does security and defence in the EU?

The European External Action Service (EEAS) is the EU’s diplomatic service, responsible for implementing CFSP and CSDP. Led by the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR), the EEAS operates the EU’s delegations abroad, coordinates intelligence among Member States, plans military and civilian CSDP missions and operations abroad (currently 17, soon to be 18), and incorporates the EU Military Staff, which provides military expertise. The Council of the EU (where Member States’ representatives negotiate policy) houses the EU Military Committee − composed of Member States’ chiefs of defence − and the Political and Security Committee, which are strategic actors in the formulation of the EU’s CSDP. EU defence ministers also meet in an informal context several times a year, as there is no formal Council configuration on this policy. The Military Planning and Conduct Capability (MPCC) is the operational headquarters for the EU’s non-executive missions and can command one executive mission the size of an EU battlegroup, made up of units from Member States. The counterpart for the EU’s civilian CSDP missions is the Civilian Planning and Conduct Capability. The EU’s military CSDP missions are now financed through a new off-budget mechanism, the European Peace Facility, operational since July 2021. This instrument can also fund military assistance to partner countries. The European Defence Agency, headed by the HR, supports Member States in developing collaborative defence research and development by identifying gaps and stimulating the European defence industry. The EEAS and the EDA oversee intergovernmental permanent structured cooperation (PESCO), a framework launched in 2017 by 25 EU Member States to enhance military integration and defence cooperation between EU armed forces and industry. PESCO currently numbers 46 multinational projects covering the defence spectrum. One notable example is the project on military mobility, which aims to improve the movement of troops across and beyond Europe and with which the US has recently been associated. Prompted by the need for a more effective European defence industry, the EU has set up the European Defence Fund (EDF), funding defence research and capability development projects. The coordinated annual review on defence maps the EU’s defence landscape and identifies gaps to be targeted by future collaborative projects. The European Commission’s Directorate-General for Defence Industry and Space oversees the implementation of the EDF and promotes competitiveness and innovation in the European defence and space industries.

European Parliament: Role and responsibilities While the European Parliament does not formulate security or defence policies or directly administer defence institutions, it does play active oversight and co-legislative roles, e.g. in the case of the EDF and CFSP budget. Parliament has long called for the EU to take a more active and ambitious defence role, and advocated greater integration of Member States’ armed forces and defence policies. The Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET) monitors implementation of the CFSP, scrutinises international agreements signed by the EU and offers a parliamentary perspective on EU external action. The Subcommittee on Security and Defence (SEDE), as part of AFET, scrutinises all areas of the CSDP, from operations to capabilities, and provides a forum for debating these aspects transparently. The Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) oversees aspects relating to the EU defence and space industry, including the EDF and cybersecurity. Military mobility is also an issue of interest. Who does security and defence in the US?

The United States State Department oversees foreign policy and diplomatic engagement. The Department of Defense (DoD) is the largest US government agency, responsible for coordinating the branches of the armed forces and military intelligence agencies. Three departments within the DoD − the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force − direct the majority of the US service branches: the Army, the Marines, the Navy, the Air Force, and the Space Force, with the Coast Guard falling under the Department of Homeland Security. Most service branches also maintain a reserve component, and each of the 50 states equips an Army and Air National Guard that can be federalised in times of war or national emergency. Eleven different combatant commands manage military operations, including the US European Command headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany. The chiefs of staff for the service branches collectively make up the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the most senior planning and advisory body in the US military. Its chair also sits on the National Security Council, a forum of senior staff and agency secretaries that advises the President on matters of national security, military operations, and foreign policy. The DoD houses the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), whose purpose is to produce breakthrough technologies and innovation for the US military, and the National Security Agency (NSA), which collects and monitors signals intelligence for domestic security.

US Congress: Role and responsibilities Congress has extensive control over the appointment of leaders, funding, deployment, and objectives of US security and defence institutions. The Senate and House Foreign Relations Committees have jurisdiction over national security developments affecting foreign policy, strategic planning, the deployment of the armed forces, sanctions, and arms control. The Senate and House Armed Services Committees oversee the DoD and draft the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a crucial step in the annual federal budget process. The chair of the Joint Chiefs also submits a classified national military strategy (distilled from the NSS and NDS) to these two committees. The Senate and House Committees on Intelligence supervise the 18 organisations that make up the nation’s intelligence community, overlapping in jurisdiction with the Armed Services Committees. Both the US Constitution and the War Powers Act (1973) grant Congress sole authority to declare war, but the executive branch has repeatedly sent American forces into combat without a formal declaration from Congress. The debate over the need to recover this authority, post 9/11, has won bipartisan support during the 117th Congress.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Who does what in security and defence?‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.