European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

Written by Ivana Katsarova,

What techniques, materials and skills will be needed to foster a better future in the wake of the global pandemic? This was just one of the questions raised during a European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) online roundtable on the ability of the New European Bauhaus initiative to pool expertise and ideas from architects, urban planners, designers and citizens, on building a more sustainable future.

This lively discussion took place in the slipstream of the recent European Commission pledge to bring the European Green Deal into people’s minds and homes and become the first climate-neutral continent by 2050. Indeed, one of the ways to help achieve this ambitious goal lies in the new European Bauhaus initiative, set to demonstrate that what is necessary can also be beautiful. Participants in an online roundtable entitled ‘Inside the New European Bauhaus: How to design and build a more sustainable future?‘, which took place on 16 March 2021, looked at these issues through the prism of a number of inspiring projects, offering advice, but also expressing some caution.

Etienne Bassot, Director of the Members’ Research Service in the EPRS, set the scene for the debate by outlining the wider context of the New European Bauhaus initiative.

Laurence Farreng (Renew, France) European Parliament rapporteur on the greening of the EU’s flagship programmes Erasmus+, Creative Europe and the Solidarity Corps, confirmed that the cultural and creative industries are ready to take part in shaping the European Green Deal by bringing innovative ideas. While hailing the fact that professionals and citizens have already made more than 300 contributions, Laurence Farreng expressed concern regarding the initiative’s funding, which has not been clearly defined, and pleaded for a top-up from the European Regional Development Fund.

Similarly, Laurence Farreng regretted that the current name is linked to the past and is not evocative enough for citizens, but also expressed the hope that the New European Bauhaus initiative will help to add a human dimension to the European Green Deal. Finally, she reminded the audience that the original Bauhaus school was known for its craft-based curriculum, hoping that the initiative would become a true driver of change while also bridging the gap between the creative sector and the education sector.

How can new life be injected into a cultural heritage gem from 1930, knowing that historical buildings need to meet the same requirements in terms of safety and comfort as modern ones, and that fitting technical infrastructure in such buildings is expensive and clashes with the preservation of the original aesthetics? Krystyna Kirschke, Professor at the Faculty of Architecture at Wrocław University of Science and Technology (Poland) answered this tricky question by explaining the complex renovation techniques used to restore the Renoma department store and the old railway station in Wrocław to their former glory. The success of the Renoma project was such that the modern extension to the store added in 2009 was nominated for the 2011 EU Mies van der Rohe Contemporary Architecture award; the Wrocław railway station meanwhile welcomes 20 million passengers a year.

Interestingly, the approach advocated by the panellists, went well beyond creatively-designed projects, presenting new visions for society as a whole.

Highlighting the importance of the circular approach through the reuse of materials (without transformation, as opposed to recycling) Maarten Gielen – co-founder of ROTOR Design Practice in Belgium – presented an Interreg-funded project launched in 2019, which aimed at a 50 % increase in the volume of reclaimed building elements in north-west Europe by 2032. Today, only 1 % of such elements are reused, the rest ending up crushed, melted down, or disposed of, with a high environmental impact and a net loss of economic value. The aim of the project is to help dealers in reclaimed materials to structure their efforts, for example by producing technical specifications for specific materials, enabling them to participate in public procurement procedures.

Importantly, Maarten Gielen reminded participants of the need to examine the various forms of sustainability critically. Indeed, despite its formal beauty, the Bosco Verticale project (2014, Boeri Architects, Milan, Italy) – the pioneering incorporation of a vertical forest into 44 storeys across two towers – incurs very high maintenance costs, making it accessible only to wealthier residents. In conclusion, Maarten Gielen called for the reinvention of beauty, with careful restraint and a focus on perception, sculpting the eye instead of the building. He also expressed his hope that the various partners involved in the New European Bauhaus initiative would be invited to help design the legislative efforts accompanying it, so that it becomes more than just another EU-funded programme.

The round table event was also treated to a musical interlude. A video excerpt from Benjamin Millepied’s L A Summer Dance intensive classes offered a fresh and inspiring perspective on creative learning. By turning an old garage into a space where young people could practice what they love, a neighbourhood grew into a community. Over two weeks, the project provided 24 secondary school students from disadvantaged backgrounds with two weeks of full-day, professionally taught dance and choreography classes, resulting in a full dance piece performed at the project’s annual gala.

Focusing in particular on the challenge of improving city dwellers’ experience, Xavier Matilla, chief architect with Barcelona city council (Spain), shared some insights from the Superblocks project. The idea was to offer a quiet space for inhabitants to enjoy local cultural events and activities. The Superblocks project seems to have found the solution: by giving streets back to the people, revitalising social events rather than just improving physical infrastructure, organising mobility more efficiently and, importantly, offering new opportunities for outdoor activities. The aim of the project – currently under way in the Eixample district – is to offer all residents a square or ‘green street’ within 200 metres of their homes, with a substantial increase in the number of meeting and relaxation areas. In addition, the transformation of the space has helped to increase the number of social activities in the Sant Antoni neighbourhood from just one in 2013 to 32 in 2019. This successful blueprint is now set to be extended to the whole of the city of Barcelona. Some priority areas have already been defined with a view to lowering air pollution and expanding green areas.

Highlighting the importance of participatory music projects in combating xenophobia, racism and antisemitism, Lukas Pairon, co-founder of the Social Impact of Making Music (SIMM) platform, talked participants through some inspiring projects being carried out by practitioners united by their common interest in the role of music as a social work tool. De Ledebirds, a community orchestra from Ghent in Belgium has a large repertoire of world music and welcomes musicians (to be) of all levels. Similarly, the Al‑Farabi Music Academy in Berlin (Germany) offers a chance for young people who have fled conflict zones to sing or play music with young people from different backgrounds, thus experiencing the universal power of music. Launched 10 years ago, Demos (France) is a cultural democratisation project mixing various social groups and centred on musical practice in an orchestra for children aged 7 to 12. Having successfully expanded to the whole of France, the project expects to number 60 orchestras by 2022.

Finally, Marcos Ros (S&D, Spain) founder of the New European Bauhaus Friendship Group at the European Parliament confirmed that the project comes at a crucial moment for the EU – a time of transition towards economic recovery, the Green Deal and digitalisation – and should serve as a preliminary phase for the renovation wave. He also argued that this should be an opportunity to reimagine not only buildings and cities but also our way of life. Insisting that the funding of the project should reflect its interdisciplinary nature, Marcos Ros pointed to various potential financial sources such as the Recovery and Resilience Facility, Horizon Europe, and the European Regional Development Fund, without ruling out the possibility for co-financing from EU Member States. Hoping that open citizen participation will prevail over elitist movements, he underscored that Parliament should retain a substantial role in the process. Bringing the inclusion dimension to the fore, Marcos Ros argued that the New European Bauhaus initiative should reach the smallest towns and villages in the EU, so that real money and real solutions can reach real people.

The event gathered some 150 virtual participants at its peak, with audience questions focusing on elitism versus inclusion, European versus local level of intervention, new versus old construction materials.

Interestingly, an instant poll among those attending the event revealed that over two thirds perceived the New European Bauhaus initiative as a mixture of architecture, aesthetics and arts, climate change, energy efficiency and innovative social solutions.

• The following EPRS publications provide further insight and food for thought:

• What if technology and culture combined to boost a green recovery?, At a glance, Vadim Kononeko, 2020.
• Cohesion policy contribution to New European Bauhaus, At a glance, Agnieszka Widuto, 2021.
• EU Prize for Contemporary Architecture / Mies van der Rohe Award: A tribute to Bauhaus, At a glance, Magdalena Pasikowska-Schnass, 2021.
• The Bauhaus movement: Where are the women?, Briefing, Ivana Katsarova, 2021.
• Education and the New European Bauhaus, At a glance, Denise Chircop, 2021.

© Adobe Stock

Citizens turn to the European Parliament to ask what the EU is doing to combat cybercrime. Over recent years, cybercrime has been a growing threat to the EU: it is estimated to have increased fivefold from 2013 to 2017. The most prominent types of cybercrime are attacks against information technology (IT) systems, online fraud (including phishing and identity theft), and illegal online content (including incitement to terrorism and child sexual abuse). With an increasing reliance on the internet due to the measures taken against the coronavirus, specific crimes targeting citizens’ fears about the pandemic have also increased. However, cyber-attacks are not exclusively conducted with a criminal intent. Increasingly, they have played a role in what is known as hybrid warfare, taking the shape of disinformation attacks to influence democratic processes. As borders do not limit cybercrime, it is essential for the European Union to develop a common approach in order to complement the national capabilities of EU countries that primarily address these issues.

Cybersecurity bodies

To achieve this, the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA) was established in 2004. It cooperates with EU countries and institutions and helps to make the EU more resilient against cyber-attacks, in particular by contributing to cyber policy, operational cooperation and capacity building. Current key topics include fostering cloud computing security, ensuring the robustness of critical infrastructure against attacks as well as providing resources regarding the cybersecurity issues brought on by the coronavirus.

Additionally, the European Union’s law enforcement agency Europol established the European Cybercrime Centre (EC3) in 2013, to ‘help protect European citizens, businesses and governments from online crime’. It has since been involved in high-profile operations as well as on-the-spot operational support, and also made cybercrime one of its priority areas from 2018‑2021.

European Parliament actions

Given this increase in the frequency of cybercrime and the growing digital connectedness of the EU, a 2019 Regulation on cybersecurity (replacing the 2013 Cybersecurity Act) aims at ensuring the proper functioning of the internal market and a high level of cybersecurity, cyber resilience and trust within the Union. In the course of adopting the regulation, the European Parliament highlighted the importance of a common response to cyber-attacks, helped by expertise provided through the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity. This is also meant to facilitate operational cooperation between EU countries.

The European Parliament had previously adopted a resolution on the fight against cybercrime in October 2017, where it underlined that fighting cybercrime should be first and foremost about safeguarding and hardening critical infrastructures and other networked devices and not only pursuing repressive measures.

EU cybersecurity strategy 

In December 2020, the Commission presented a new cybersecurity strategy. The strategy aims to bolster Europe’s collective resilience against cyber threats. Specifically, the Commission put forward legislative proposals on the security of network and information systems and on the protection of critical infrastructure. Both proposals aim to address both cyber and physical resilience of critical entities and networks: the European Parliament and EU countries are working on these proposals.

Other measures taken by the EU

In May 2019, the EU countries established a sanctions framework for cyber-attacks originating outside the EU, which enables them to place sanctions on perpetrators of cybercrime and can act as a deterrent by increasing the consequences of conducting a cyber-attack against EU countries or international organisations.

Further information

• Cyber: How big is the threat?, European Parliamentary Research Service, At a Glance, July 2019
• Internet Organised Crime Threat Assessment (IOCTA) 2020, Europol, Report, October 2020
• Understanding the EU response to organised crime, European Parliamentary Research Service, Briefing, September 2020
• The EU’s Cybersecurity Strategy in the Digital Decade, European Commission, Factsheet, December 2020
• Cybersecurity: how the EU tackles cyber threats, Council of the European Union

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 Clare Ferguson,

With several major debates on the agenda, Members will pack a number of legislative items into the short time available for the part-session taking place on 24 and 25 March 2021. Before that, however, they will discuss preparations for this week’s European Council meeting. Switched to videoconference only a few days before, this meeting of EU leaders will focus on issues with vaccine supplies and the vaccination strategy, and will also debate the Commission’s proposed ‘Digital Green Certificates’ which could be used to prove an individual has been vaccinated or has a recent negative test.

On Wednesday afternoon, Members are scheduled to debate the reform of EU financing, known as own resources, following which they are expected to vote on three Council regulations that complete the EU budget’s revenue system. The new revenue streams envisaged under the Own Resources Decision are required to raise sufficient resources to repay borrowing for the Next Generation EU (NGEU) funding, which aims at financing key EU objectives on climate change and the digital economy. Members will consider the proposed regulation on implementing measures that requires Parliament’s consent; and a further two proposals on which Parliament is consulted, concerning the operational provisions for collecting new own resources from plastic packaging waste and value added tax, agreed under the Own Resources Decision. Further proposals for new own resources include a carbon border adjustment mechanism; a digital levy; a revised emissions trading system (ETS); and financial tax contributions. However, the Own Resources Decision is currently undergoing ratification by the Member States, without which spending under NGEU cannot begin. A Committee on Budgets (BUDG) report furthermore deplores the delays in ratification, which is holding up vital borrowing and lending operations under the NGEU recovery instrument – urgently needed to prioritise the recovery from the coronavirus crisis. On Wednesday afternoon, Parliament will also debate the BUDG committee report, which aims to propose a set of guidelines that will assist the European Commission in drawing up the draft 2022 EU budget. Naturally, committee’s focus is firmly on prioritising the social and economic recovery, particularly in respect of the impact on young people. The BUDG committee also calls for maximum flexibility in disbursing the budget to face the challenges of climate change and digital transition, and underlines the importance of health and security spending.

There is no doubt that the economic shock of the coronavirus measures will be severe. In a further joint debate on Wednesday, on the capital markets recovery package, Members will debate the provisional agreements reached during interinstitutional negotiations on two European Commission legislative proposals. The first updates the framework for securitisation in the EU to enhance banks’ capacity to help to fund the recovery, and the second amends the securitisation framework itself. While the provisional agreements incorporate most of the changes called for by Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON), proposed performance-related triggers and amendments on non-performing exposures were not agreed upon. However, some additional details have been included, such as specifying the formulae to calculate the maximum capital requirement in case of a qualifying traditional non-performing exposures securitisation. The proposals also task the European Banking Authority with monitoring the measures and reporting to the European Commission, which will consider whether to propose further amendments.

Despite the economic ravages of the pandemic, the EU stands by its firm commitment to tackle the climate emergency and – accounting for one-third of the entire EU budget – cohesion policy is set to make a major contribution. On Wednesday evening, Members are expected to debate an own-initiative report by the Committee on Regional Development (REGI), which points to the need for coordinated and coherent climate action across all policies and governance levels. The report stresses the key role of local and regional authorities in translating the wider EU climate ambition stated in the Paris Agreement and European Green Deal into action at the local level.

Aiming to boost international cooperation on both climate change and migration issues, Members will discuss an own-initiative report from Parliament’s Development Committee (DEVE) on proposals for a new EU-Africa strategy on Wednesday evening. The DEVE report underlines the need to refocus the partnership towards attaining greater sustainability and inclusive development, with particular focus on security, agriculture and health issues, and human rights.

Finally, to both protect legitimate business interests and simultaneously reinforce protection of human rights in the world, the need for new limits on exports of dual-use items has become clear. There is considerable EU trade in these goods or technologies, which are generally used for civilian purposes, but can also be turned to alternative military use in, for example, weapons of mass destruction, or cyber surveillance. Under consideration for some years now, Members will turn their attention to this important human rights issue on Thursday afternoon, in a debate on an interinstitutional agreement on the revision of the export control regime.

Written by Martin Russell,

© area51uk / Adobe Stock

The US and Russia both have formidable arsenals of potentially destructive nuclear weapons. Although a nuclear-free world remains a distant dream, the two countries have taken steps to limit the risk of nuclear conflict, through a series of arms control agreements limiting the number of strategic weapons that each can have. In force since 2011, the New Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty (New START) is the latest of these agreements.

Under New START, Russia and the US are limited to an equal number of deployed strategic warheads and weapons carrying them, such as intercontinental ballistic missiles. To ensure compliance, there are strict counting rules and transparency requirements, giving each side a reliable picture of the other’s strategic nuclear forces.

The 2019 collapse of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty left New START as the only major surviving US-Russia arms control agreement. In early 2021, with New START due to expire in February and the two sides deadlocked over the conditions for extending it, it looked as if the last remaining restrictions on the world’s two main nuclear powers were about to lapse.

Following a last-minute reprieve by newly elected US President, Joe Biden, the two parties agreed to extend New START until 2026, thereby giving each other welcome breathing space to negotiate a replacement treaty. There are still many unanswered questions about the kind of weapons that a future treaty could include.

Read the complete briefing on ‘The New START Treaty between the US and Russia: The last surviving pillar of nuclear arms control‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Ralf Drachenberg,

© Adobe Stock

One year after the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic, the fight against the virus will again top the agenda of the European Council meeting on 25-26 March 2021. EU leaders are expected to focus their discussions on ‘digital green certificates’ (providing proof of vaccination and/or Covid-19 test results) and progress on production, delivery and deployment of vaccines. They will work further on developing a common EU approach to the gradual lifting of restrictions and refer to global solidarity. Other agenda points are digitalisation, including digital taxation, the single market and industrial policy. In respect of external relations, EU leaders will review the situation in the eastern Mediterranean and hold a strategic discussion on Russia. The subsequent Euro Summit will discuss the international role of the euro.

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

The Leaders’ Agenda for 2020-21 envisaged a physical European Council meeting in March 2021. However, due to the still serious health situation, this has been replaced by video-conference sessions. As is customary, at the start of the European Council meeting, the President of the European Parliament, David Sassoli, will address the Heads of State or Government. António Costa, the Prime Minister of Portugal, which currently holds the rotating six-month presidency of the Council of the EU, will provide an overview of progress made in implementing previous European Council conclusions. The Leaders’ Agenda 2020-21 published in October 2020 placed economic issues as well as Russia on the agenda. The eastern Mediterranean was added to the agenda due to the commitment made at the European Council meeting of 10-11 December 2020.

2. European Council agenda points Policy area Previous commitment Occasion on which commitment was made Coronavirus The European Council will return to this issue regularly. 1-2 October 2020 Single market, industrial policy and digital The European Council will return to the topics of the single market, industrial policy and digital at its meeting in March 2021. In this context, it will also assess the situation regarding the work on the important issue of digital taxation. 1-2 October 2020 External relations Submit a report on the situation in the eastern Mediterranean and EU-Turkey political and economic relations for consideration. 10-11 December 2020 EU coordination efforts in response to the coronavirus pandemic Progress on production, delivery and deployment of vaccines

EU Heads of State or Government will address developments regarding vaccine delivery and vaccination across the EU. Current figures show 69.5 million doses delivered and 51 million doses administrated in the EU (state of play 16/03). EU leaders will address the extension of the export authorisation scheme, most likely welcoming it.

EU leaders are also expected to discuss the temporary suspension of administration of the AstraZeneca vaccine in 20 EU Member States, due to concerns over the safety of the jab, despite the World Health Organization (WHO) having urged countries to continue administrating the AstraZeneca vaccine. On 18 March, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) concluded that the ‘benefits still outweigh the risks’.

Moreover, the criticism from some Member States, spearheaded by Austrian Chancellor, Sebastian Kurz, about the allocation of coronavirus vaccines is also likely to be addressed. In preparation for the summit, the President of the European Council, Charles Michel held a video-conference on 17 March with the leaders of Croatia, Austria, Bulgaria, Latvia, Czechia and Slovenia.

More positive developments regarding the fight against coronavirus came on 11 March, when the EMA recommended the Johnson & Johnson vaccine be authorised for use in the EU. This brings the number of authorised Covid-19 vaccines to four, adding to those from BioNTech-Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Moderna (for a detailed overview of the different Covid-19 vaccines approved or under examination by the EMA see EPRS table). Moreover, on 16 March, the Commission announced that BioNTech-Pfizer would accelerate the delivery of 10 million doses for the second quarter of 2021.

Common EU approach to the gradual lifting of restrictions

EU leaders also aim at further developing a common EU approach to the gradual lifting of coronavirus pandemic related restrictions. In that context, on 17 March, the European Commission adopted a communication on ‘a common path to safe and sustained re-opening’. In this communication, the Commission invites the European Council to ‘call for an agreed approach to a safe re-opening based on a solid scientific framework’ and ‘to support further coordination on efforts to contain the pandemic at a global level, based on the Team Europe approach’ (i.e. supporting partner countries in the fight against the coronavirus pandemic and its consequences).

Free movement of persons and digital green certificates

At their last video-conference on the fight against coronavirus, on 25 February 2021, EU leaders called for ‘work to continue on a common approach to vaccination certificates’ and promised that they would return to this issue. On 17 March, the Commission put forward the ‘Digital Green Certificate’, with the aim of facilitating safe free movement of citizens in the EU during the Covid‑19 pandemic. EU leaders are expected to welcome the proposal and to invite the co-legislators to adopt it rapidly. An in-depth discussion is expected on the proposal, notably regarding the type of rights such a certificate would provide.

The next practical steps will be for the Commission to set up the digital infrastructure to facilitate the authentication of Digital Green Certificates and for Member States to introduce the necessary changes in their national health records’ systems.

Regarding the free movement of people, the eight Member States which had previously set temporary internal border controls due to Covid-19 (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Portugal and Spain), have all renewed them until the end of March or even into April.

The ‘Digital Green Certificate’
The Digital Green Pass is a proof in digital form that a person:

• has been vaccinated against Covid-19;
• has a negative test result; or
• has recovered from Covid-19.

Travellers holding this certificate should be exempted from restrictions on free movement on the same basis as citizens of the visited Member State.
It ensures a very high level of data protection.
It does not

• present a precondition to free movement or require a person to be vaccinated;
• discriminate between different vaccines, authorised by the EMA;
• share any personal medical data.

Source: European Commission.

Single market, industrial policy, digital transformation and the economy

EU leaders will take stock of progress on the single market, industrial policy and digital transition.

Single market and industrial policy

The return to a well-functioning single market, especially in the field of services, and the protection of fair competition are at the centre of the EU’s agenda. In line with previous European Council conclusions, EU leaders will probably highlight the need for an inclusive and sustainable recovery and the removal of remaining unjustified barriers. The European Council will most likely briefly discuss the role of labour markets and skills policies in the green and digital transitions.

EU leaders will debate industrial policy in the light of the update of the Commission’s 2020 Industrial strategy expected for 27 April 2021. They will most likely underscore the need to strengthen competitiveness and resilience, and to accelerate the green and digital transitions.

Digital transition

The European Council will once again discuss the digital transformation, which is a key pillar of the EU’s recovery from Covid-19. Charles Michel has repeatedly stated the role that digital sovereignty ‘plays in our greater goal of strategic autonomy’, while digital transformation is a prerequisite for a successful economic recovery strategy. EU leaders will also probably endorse the Commission’s communication, 2030 Digital Compass: The European way for the Digital Decade, and call for the Council to examine it and formulate relevant policy guidelines. In line with the conclusions of the economic and finance ministers on 16 March, they will most probably put particular emphasis on the need to address the tax challenges arising from the digitalisation of the economy and support the ongoing negotiations on digital taxation in the OECD, which are aimed at achieving a global and consensus-based solution by mid-2021. Despite the efforts of Italy, Spain and France for a European solution, a group of low-tax countries, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Sweden, Finland, Latvia, Germany, the Netherlands and Romania will push for a global solution. However, the European Council will most likely also state its readiness to move forward with an EU solution, should there be no progress in the G20/OECD format. Indeed, the Commission is expected to put forward a proposal, separate from the OECD negotiations, on a digital levy by June 2021, which the European Council will probably note during the meeting.

European Semester

Following the Council’s conclusions of 25 January, EU leaders will most probably endorse the policy priority areas of the annual Sustainable Growth Strategy and welcome the draft Council recommendation on the economic policy of the euro area.

External relations Situation in the eastern Mediterranean

The European Council is expected to take stock of the situation in the eastern Mediterranean. In 2020, tensions in the region reached a new high. EU leaders have repeatedly called on Turkey to stop its unilateral actions and commit to de-escalation as a means to facilitate cooperation. They agreed to embark with Turkey on a re-energised agenda should tensions de-escalate, dialogue be renewed and stability return to the region. In early 2021, Greece and Turkey resumed bilateral talks on maritime delimitation, with several rounds already concluded, whilst the Council has closely monitored progress. As a parallel process, talks on the Cyprus issue are expected to resume under UN leadership in April 2021. At the request of EU leaders, High Representative Josep Borrell will present a report on EU-Turkey relations, which will focus on the political, economic and trade relationship. No decision on the way forward in the relationship with Turkey is expected at this stage, as EU leaders will most probably continue to monitor developments.

Russia

For the first time since October 2016, EU leaders will hold a strategic debate on relations with Russia, at a time when bilateral relations are at a ‘new low’. The High Representative’s visit to Moscow earlier this year did not succeed in ‘reversing the negative trend’ in EU-Russia relations, and an opportunity to have ‘a more constructive dialogue’ was lost. Borrell himself was criticised not only for undertaking the visit, but also for the lack of results and the negative impact on the EU. To uphold principles and values as well as show unity, the EU activated its recently introduced global human rights sanctions regime and imposed sanctions on officials responsible for the illegal imprisonment of opposition leader, Alexei Navalny. EU leaders had condemned Navalny’s detention, and called for his release.

In preparation for the European Council meeting, the Foreign Affairs Council noted that Russia ‘was drifting towards becoming an authoritarian state and away from Europe’. Ministers have reconfirmed their attachment to the ‘five guiding principles’ which have governed EU relations with Russia since 2016. This reflects continuity rather than adaptation to a rapidly changing environment in which Russia’s increased assertiveness is a reality.

In recent years, Russia has multiplied destabilisation attempts, through targeted disinformation and cyber-activities against EU Member States and partners in the Western Balkans. In parallel, it has maximised its action regionally in Syria and in the illegally occupied Crimea where accelerated militarisation is under way and human rights abuses accumulate. For the past seven years, the European Council has succeeded in achieving and maintaining unity in setting and renewing sanctions in response to the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014. Yet shaping an effective Russia policy requires more than consensus on that one issue. At present, there is a window of opportunity to rethink the EU’s Russia strategy in close cooperation with the US, under the new EU-US transatlantic agenda. Furthermore, both the EU and NATO are currently developing their strategic visions and should grasp the opportunity to reflect (jointly) on their future relationship with Russia.

3. Euro Summit

On 26 March, the Euro Summit will meet in an inclusive format with all EU-27 leaders (while the 19 leaders of the euro-area countries automatically attend, leaders of the other Member States that have ratified the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the EMU (now all 27) only participate by right in certain discussions). The focus will be on the euro’s international role and ways to ‘strengthen our autonomy in various situations’, in line with the Commission’s communication of 19 January on the European economic and financial system. EU leaders will probably receive an update on the state of play of banking union and fiscal support measures, with a focus on the fiscal strategy, the fiscal stance in the euro area, and the future of the ongoing coordinated fiscal response.

Read this briefing on ‘Outlook for the meetings of EU leaders on 25-26 March 2021‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Sofija Voronova and Piotr Bąkowski,

© sveta / Adobe Stock

In December 2020, the European Parliament’s Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee adopted its reports on a pair of 2018 legislative proposals on electronic evidence in criminal matters, and mandates to start trilogue negotiations on the two proposals. The proposed new rules would allow law enforcement and judicial authorities to directly request (or temporarily secure) electronic data needed for investigating and prosecuting crime from electronic service providers operating in the EU (wherever the data is stored), and would impose an obligation on these service providers to appoint a legal representative for the purpose of gathering evidence and answering competent authorities’ requests. This two-part legislative initiative is the result of an almost two-year process of reflection on how to better adapt criminal justice to the challenges of the digital age, with a specific focus on jurisdiction in cyberspace and access to electronic evidence. The initiative is part of a broader array of international efforts to improve the legal framework and address persistent legal uncertainty that affects law enforcement and private parties alike.

Complete version

• Electronic evidence in criminal matters (1st edition)

A: Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European Production and Preservation Orders for electronic evidence in criminal matters

B: Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on the appointment of legal representatives for the purpose of gathering evidence in criminal proceedings Committee responsible: Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) A: COM(2018) 225
17.04.2018
2018/0108(COD Rapporteur: Birgit Sippel (S&D, Germany) B: COM(2018) 226
17.04.2018
2018/0107(COD) Shadow rapporteurs: Nuno Melo (EPP, Portugal)
Moritz Körner (Renew Europe, Germany)
Annalisa Tardino (ID, Italy)
Sergey Lagodinsky (Greens/EFA, Germany)
Lucia Ďuriš Nicholsonová (ECR, Slovakia)
Cornelia Ernst (The Left, Germany) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Trilogue negotiations

Written by Aleksandra Heflich, Niombo Lomba and Klaus Müller, European Added Value Unit; Stefano Vettorazzi, Ex-Ante Impact Assessment Unit; Ekaterina Karamfilova, Ex-Post Evaluation Unit; Alessandro D’Alfonso, Gregor Erbach, Vivienne Halleux, Liselotte Jensen, James McEldowney, Marketa Pape, Henrique Simões, Frederik Scholaert, Jana Titievskaia and Ionel Zamfir, Members’ Research Service,

Photo by Alto Crew on Unsplash.com © European Union, 2021.

The European Green Deal aims at making the European Union (EU) climate-neutral by 2050, a target supported by all EU institutions. With this objective, the EU takes a leading role in addressing the global climate emergency. Achieving the climate-neutrality goal requires massive investment and an unprecedented transformation of all sectors of the economy.

This study explains the physical basis of climate change and highlights its expected impacts on the European Union; outlines international climate agreements, EU climate action and the climate policies of major economies; assesses the coherence of EU climate policy with other policy areas and presents the financing of EU climate action through the EU budget and other instruments. To assess the implications of the climate neutrality objective, the study analyses the challenges and opportunities for various sectors of the EU economy and its impacts on issues such as international relations and trade. Some of the main challenges and opportunities are summarised below.

Citizens support ambitious climate action and are ready to change towards more climate-friendly behaviours. Climate-friendly consumption choices can be supported by appropriate policies and information about the climate impact of consumer products. Policies to address climate change often also have co-benefits for human health.

Innovation policies and research and development (R&D) funding help to facilitate and accelerate the diffusion of innovative low-carbon technologies from the research laboratory to large-scale deployment in the market. This rapid innovation needs to be accompanied by measures to ensure a just transition for regions that are currently dependent on energy and emissions-intensive industries. Local action in cities plays an important role in reducing their vulnerability to climate change, through adaptation measures and in contributing to emissions reductions at the local level. Due to the large existing building stock, the buildings sector faces a challenge to accelerate energy-efficient renovation, which offers opportunities for job creation and addressing energy poverty. The finance sector faces the challenge of aligning financial flows with the transition towards climate neutrality and managing the risks associated with stranded assets.

Europe’s industry will need to become climate neutral and less energy intensive. Key enabling factors are markets for green products, infrastructure, and support for industrial innovation. The energy system faces the challenge of replacing fossil fuels with reliable emission-free energy sources. The transport sector will need to introduce clean alternatives to fossil fuels rapidly, to prevent European automotive and aerospace industries from falling behind in the transition towards low-carbon mobility.

Nature-based solutions offer great potential for climate mitigation and adaptation, but natural systems are also vulnerable to a changing climate. The same is true for agriculture, which is highly vulnerable to climate change, but also has a large potential to contribute to emission reductions and carbon sequestration. Oceans face various climate-related pressures, which also affect fisheries, while ocean energy and offshore wind offer large untapped potential for clean energy.

Since the EU is responsible for only a fraction of global emissions, global leadership and engagement with international partners through trade and diplomacy are vital. Development cooperation can also support adaptation to climate change in third countries and thereby address one of the drivers of migration.

The final chapter addresses the issues facing European policy-makers and the outlook for European and global climate action in the context of the coronavirus pandemic.

Read the complete study on ‘EU climate action policy: Responding to the global emergency‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Giulio Sabbati (Members’ Research Service, EPRS) and Igor Tkalec (GlobalStat, EUI),

Circular economy is a production and consumption model that involves reusing, repairing, refurbishing and recycling existing materials and products to keep materials within the economy. It implies that waste becomes a resource, consequently minimising the actual amount of waste. The circular model is generally the antithesis of a traditional, linear economic model, which is based on a ‘take-make-consume-throw away’ pattern. This paper looks at the job creation potential and added value produced by the circular economy and illustrates the generation and treatment of waste in the EU.

© European Union 2021, EPRS

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Living in the EU: Circular economy‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

 

Written by Katarzyna Sochacka and Clare Ferguson,

EP Plenary session – Ceremony of the signature of the Joint declaration for the Conference of the Future of Europe

The highlight of the March I 2021 plenary session was the official signature of the Joint Declaration on the Conference on the Future of Europe, allowing the Conference’s work finally to get under way. Another important point was the celebration of International Women’s Day, which was held just before the start of the session, with Kamala Harris, Vice‑President of the United States of America, and Jacinda Ardern, Prime Minister of New Zealand, addressing the plenary in video messages, and Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, also participating, in the chamber.

The main debates held during the session concerned the economic impact of the Covid‑19 pandemic – focusing on investment, competitiveness and skills, as well as the proposed action plan for the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights, in preparation for the Social Summit in Porto in May. Members also discussed the application of the rule of law conditionality mechanism, respect for the partnership principle in the preparation and implementation of national recovery and resilience plans, and ensuring good governance of the expenditure of EU funding. Proposals on the European Semester annual strategies, corporate due diligence and corporate accountability, as well as the InvestEU and EU4Health programmes, were also debated and voted.

Parliament also adopted a resolution declaring the EU an LGBTIQ Freedom Zone. Members debated government attempts to silence free media in Poland, Hungary and Slovenia. Debates were held on reforming the EU policy framework to end tax avoidance in the EU following the OpenLux revelations. Members debated statements by High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the Commission, Josep Borell, on the current political situation in Georgia and on the continuing conflict in Syria.

Conference on the Future of Europe

The formal signature, by the presidents of the EU institutions, of the recently endorsed Joint Declaration on the Conference of the Future of Europe, an initiative long supported by Parliament, allows the Conference to begin its work to engage with citizens’ concerns. As direct representatives elected by people in EU countries, Parliamentarians are keen to contribute along with citizens themselves, to building a truly Citizen’s Union. The day-to-day work will be managed by the Executive Board, on which the European Parliament will have three representatives plus four observers. The Conference will aim to complete its work in spring 2022.

InvestEU programme

Members debated and approved, by a large majority, an interinstitutional agreement on the proposed InvestEU programme regulation, designed to streamline investment support and now adjusted to tackle the post-coronavirus investment landscape. Parliament has been fierce in its advocacy for adequate resources to finance the recovery, securing a €1 billion top-up for the EU guarantee and measures that could mobilise an extra €35‑40 billion in investment through incorporating European Investment Bank legacy portfolios. Thanks to the Parliament’s efforts, the proposals now include the possibility for Member States to use InvestEU funding to provide capital support for otherwise viable small and medium-sized businesses that have been hard-hit by the pandemic.

EU4Health programme

Parliament approved, by a large majority, the establishment of a dedicated EU health programme – the EU4Health programme, for which Parliament had already negotiated an additional €3.4 billion during the 2021‑2027 multiannual financial framework negotiations. The programme will focus on support for measures with clear EU added value: combating cross-border health threats, ensuring affordable medicine and promoting stronger health systems.

Ombudsman’s annual activity report for 2019

Parliament elects the European Ombudsman at the beginning of each parliamentary term, and discusses own-initiative reports on its activity annually. The Ombudsman’s annual activity report for 2019 was discussed in the presence of the Ombudsman herself, Emily O’Reilly. Members adopted the resolution on the Committee on Petitions’ report on the Ombudsman’s activity by a large majority. The Ombudsman reported on a wide range of issues where she has investigated complaints and initiated enquiries into possible maladministration by EU institutions or agencies. In 2019, these included senior EU staff appointments, ongoing transparency issues in the Council and Eurogroup, and the treatment of disabled people and asylum-seekers. While the institutions complied in most cases with the Ombudsman’s recommendations in the interests of good administration, the annual report makes some key recommendations for further action on: decision-making accountability in the Council; public access to documents; interviews with asylum-seekers; appointment procedures; and on citizens’ participation in EU policy-making.

Fisheries control

Members debated and adopted Parliament’s negotiating position on the proposed revision of the EU fisheries control system, which seeks to modernise rules that have been in force for monitoring EU fishing activities since 2010. The report from Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries supports the new rules in general, whilst also seeking to protect small fishing vessels, and reserving the imposition of CCTV onboard for those who commit infringements. While fisheries control is an exclusive EU competence under the common fisheries policy, EU countries are responsible for controlling their fishing activities, with the European Commission checking that they fulfil their responsibilities correctly. Advances in technology allow more effective controls to protect fish stocks, and the rules are therefore being revised.

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

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© wernerimages / Adobe Stock

Nearly two months ago, on 20th January, Joseph Biden was sworn in as the 46th President of the United States, at the end of perhaps the most divisive electoral processes in his country’s history. The new President’s supporters and advocates, including many in Europe, are counting on him to set a new course for the US in global politics, moving to firm up and advance the multilateral, rules-based world order and rekindle America’s traditional alliances, notably within the NATO framework. Very high hopes and expectations have been raised about the potential of Washington to make a decisive shift from the assumptions and actions of Trump years.

This note offers links to recent commentaries, studies and reports from international think tanks on President Biden’s early weeks in office and the various expectations regarding his presidency, especially in respect of the place of the United States in the world.

Stepping into the driver’s seat: The EU should double down on US-Iran diplomacy
European Policy Centre, February 2021

Biden Administration and Yemen: Orientations and implications for the conflict parties and political solution path
European Policy Centre, February 2021

For a new NATO-EU bargain
Egmont, February 2021

Transatlantic cooperation on climate change
Clingendael, February 2021

Biden begins Presidency with positive ratings: Trump departs with lowest-ever
Pew Research Center, January 2021

How America changed during Donald Trump’s Presidency
Pew Research Center, January 2021

100 ideas for the first hundred days of the Biden Administration
Atlantic Council, February 2021

After the Khashoggi report: How the US can respond and avoid blowback
Atlantic Council, February 2021

Fast thinking: Biden’s first bombing
Atlantic Council, February 2021

Three possible futures for the Biden presidency
Atlantic Council, February 2021

Biden’s foreign policy takes shape
Council on Foreign Relations, February 2021

How Biden can embrace environmental stewardship
Council on Foreign Relations, February 2021

Biden’s ‘Foreign Policy for the Middle Class’ takes shape
Council on Foreign Relations, February 2021

Breaking down Biden’s immigration actions through abbreviations
Council on Foreign Relations, February 2021

Biden and the Houthis
Council on Foreign Relations, February 2021

Biden fires a warning shot at Iran
Council on Foreign Relations, February 2021

The Singapore Declaration and the Biden Administration’s policy review
Council on Foreign Relations, February 2021

U.S. Troop withdrawal from Afghanistan: What are Biden’s options?
Council on Foreign Relations, February 2021

The Biden-Harris inauguration: A tense tableau
Council on Foreign Relations, January 2021

Biden v. Trump on growth: What the market thinks
Council on Foreign Relations, January 2021

Up in the air: Ten global summits that will test Joe Biden in 2021
Council on Foreign Relations, December 2020

Les républicains et la politique étrangère américaine après TrumpNiedziela2016: Entre néo-isolationnisme et rivalité avec la Chine
Institut français des relations internationales, January 2021

2021: What’s to come?
European Union Institue for Security Studies, January 2021

How the United States can return to credible climate leadership
Brookings Institution, March 2021

Around the halls: Brookings experts analyze President Biden’s first foreign policy speech
Brookings Institution, February 2021

Tracking President Joe Biden’s Cabinet and appointees
Brookings Institution, February 2021

The Biden presidency and Ukraine
Brookings Institution, January 2021

Biden, democracy, and Africa
Brookings Institution, January 2021

Working with the Biden Administration: Opportunities for the EU
Carnegie Europe, January 2021

How Europe can engage with U.S. President Joe Biden
Carnegie Europe, January 2021

Why the EU and the United States should rethink their Turkey policies in 2021
Carnegie Europe, January 2021

Joe Biden’s arms control ambitions are welcome: But delivering on them will not be easy
Stackholm International Peace Research Institute, January 2021

What does the world expect of President Joe Biden?
Woodrow Wilson Center, January 2021

Biden’s unlawful re-entry into climate accord
Hoover Institution, February 2021

EU and China seal a deal behind Biden’s back
Chatham House, February 2021

America must heal itself first
Chatham House, February 2021

Foreign policy priorities for the Biden administration
Chatham House, January 2021

How Europeans see Biden’s America
European Council on Foreign Relations, January 2021

Europe’s China deal: How not to work with the Biden administration
European Council on Foreign Relations, January 2021

The crisis of American power: How Europeans see Biden’s America
European Council on Foreign Relations, January 2021

How Biden can make a big difference in the Western Balkans
European Council on Foreign Relations, January 2021

Cyber defence in NATO countries: comparing models
Istituto Affari Internationali, January 2021

Unlocking European defence: In search of the long overdue paradigm shift
Istituto Affari Internationali, January 2021

Europe and Biden’s America: Making European autonomy and a revamped transatlantic bond two sides of the same coin
Istituto Affari Internationali, December 2020

Strategic autonomy or strategic alliance?
Bruegel, February 2021

The geopolitics of the European Green Deal
Bruegel, February 2021

Getting America back in the game: A multilateral perspective
Bruegel, January 2021

China investment deal: A second look
Bruegel, January 2021

From one master of survival to another: A tardigrade’s plea for NATO2030
Egmong, January 2021

Blinking, biding or bombing?
Clingedeal January 2021

What Iran’s leaders really think about Biden
Clingedal January 2021

No way back: Why the transatlantic future needs a stronger EU
Clingedeal January 2021

The world in 2021: Ten issues that will shape the international agenda
Barcelona Centre for International Affairs, December 2020

Biden doubles down on Trump’s Taiwan policy, but will it last?
Rand Corporation, February 2021

For Joe Biden, an experienced foreign policy team
Rand Corporation, January 2021

Biden’s stimulus should stay the course
Peterson Institute for International Economics, January 2021

Joe Biden understands grief: That’s a valuable skill right now
Aspen Institute, January 2021

US-migrationspolitik unter Joe Biden
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, February 2021

President Joe Biden and the restoration of US global leadership: Turning the tide?
Finnish Institute of International Affairs, December 2020

The Afghan peace process after Trump: What comes next?
Italian Institute for International Political Studies, January 2020

Read this briefing on ‘The Biden challenge in foreign policy‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

The Covid‑19 pandemic has mobilised tremendous efforts in scientific research, but also exposed its inefficiencies, according to analysts and policy-makers attending a joint event organised by the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The conference, entitled ‘The new centrality of science and technology: Will it outlive the coronavirus pandemic?’, was held online on Tuesday 23 February 2021

The event, the 15th in the series of EPRS-OECD conferences, was opened by EPRS Director-General Anthony Teasdale, who highlighted the importance of science and innovation in meeting the new challenges of the 21st century, including the pandemic. Asking the participants how science can make the best of the current crisis, he noted that ‘One of the more intriguing features of the crisis is that way that science and technology responded extremely quickly and effectively to the scale of the crisis – and how the role of scientists and technology has grown’.

Former President of the European Parliament and ex-chair of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, Jerzy Buzek (EPP, Poland), set the scene by focusing on the European Union’s Green Deal, which he said would not only help to clean up the environment, but also provide quality jobs. He urged the EU to seize the moment, pointing out how quickly change can take place. ‘In 30 years we will completely change the way we produce and transmit energy, distribute food and handle agriculture, and more broadly our whole culture. We face truly global changes’ he remarked.

The key speaker, Andy Wyckoff, Director for Science, Technology and Innovation (STI), at the OECD, noted that science and technology offer the only exit strategy from Covid‑19. More than in any other recent crisis, the current pandemic has underscored the importance of science and innovation to being both prepared and reactive to upcoming crises. Coronavirus has nevertheless stretched research and innovation systems to their limits and exposed gaps and weak spots. He noted that there is an opportunity to re-orient STI policies and direct science and innovation towards sustainable and inclusive futures. The pandemic has underscored the importance of transdisciplinary approaches to tackle complex ‘wicked’ problems such as Covid‑19 and climate change, he added. However, current research system norms and institutions are ill-adapted to addressing complex challenges like these. Disciplinary and hierarchical structures need to be adjusted to enable and promote transdisciplinary research. Government has a role to play to promote this adjustment, using a mix of policy initiatives.

Paul Hofheinz, President and founder of the Lisbon Council think tank, praised European scientific achievements, but deplored that they are not always translated into concrete inventions. He added that reforming PhD and post-doctoral training to support a diversity of career paths is essential to improving the ability of societies to react to crises like Covid‑19, as well as to deal with longer-term challenges such as climate change that require science-based responses. He argued that ‘Too much of it stays in the laboratory while it should turn into start-ups – things that people can feel and touch’.

Belgian economist Reinhilde Veugelers of the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven highlighted the importance of transnational scientific cooperation and the need to trust scientists, something that has been challenged in recent years. On the other hand, cooperation on the anti-coronavirus Covax platform shows how delicate such cooperation can prove to be.

Written by Freya Windle-Wehrle,

Can urban farming foster greater food security and autonomy in advanced economies? This was one of the key issues discussed at the EPRS Foresight Club on Friday 12 February 2021. Marie-Sophie Barreau, outgoing trainee at the Strategic Foresight and Capabilities Unit, introduced the topic of urban farming for a gathering that included colleagues from the JRC, DG AGRI’s ‘Farmers of the Future Team’, the Committee of the Regions, the Millennium Project and elsewhere.

Urban agriculture takes place within cities or their immediate proximity. It produces for local consumption and is anchored in the urban ecosystem. Urban farms take many forms, but are typically commercial ventures which occupy smaller surfaces and embrace innovative technologies. They aim to provide a more sustainable, healthier, and circular alternative to modern food supply chains.

Urban farming should not be confused with urban gardening. Urban gardening is mainly about societal benefits: plants are usually grown for personal consumption (such as kitchen gardens) and urban gardens typically adhere to educational or integrational goals, such as community building. Urban farming is a business, with economic interests in addition to societal benefits. Interestingly, the Covid‑19 pandemic renewed interest in urban gardening and farming practices. When picturing the cities of the future, the public goods associated with urban farming are worth considering.

China has taken a strategic approach to urban farming. It has invested heavily in vertical farms where crops are grown in vertically stacked layers within a controlled environment. This has prompted questions about the competitiveness and innovativeness of urban farming in Europe.

In 2014, there were about 110 plant factory projects in China. Some of these were 12-storey high vertical farms. In 2025, China will have more than 220 million cities and 8 megacities, with a great part of its population living in urban areas. In this view, urban farming seems a promising venture. Not only could it help fulfil the growing demand for pesticide-free, healthy, and fresh food, but it could also play a part in China’s goal to become climate neutral by 2060. Will this development trigger a breakthrough for urban farming in the West?

Urban farms strive for resource efficiency, and the use and re-use of water is critical. Aquaponic and hydroponic farming models are emerging. The use of wastewater has pros and cons. Its high concentration in nutrients is an opportunity, potential contamination risks and health hazards are a challenge.

Additional concerns about the effects of air, water, and soil pollution on the crops grown in cities were also mentioned. Pollution can have a negative impact on the crops grown, but there are ways to mitigate the risk. In the case of rooftop farming for instance, the height and location of the roofs make a difference. The industrial past of cities should also be taken into account.

© alisonhancock / Adobe Stock

Energy use by urban farms needs to be optimised. They can consume a lot of energy to maintain artificially-lit and climate-controlled buildings. In the future, energy efficiency could be improved through operations with waste streams such as heat, Co2, grey- and wastewater, and compost.

Research and investment are needed to unlock the benefits of urban farming. EU support can play a key role. A few urban agriculture initiatives already exist at the EU level, such as the Milan Urban Food Policy Pact. Research projects have received EU funding through the Horizon 2020 framework, such as the proGlreg and EFUA projects. Support and coordination across the different policy sectors remain critical to the long-term success of urban farming ventures in Europe.

The future of traditional farming was also discussed: will farmers relying on past methods be successful in the future? How will they adapt to social trends and megatrends such as climate change? Will urban farming bring opportunity or disruption?

The discussion touched on insect farming and its environmental advantages in comparison to livestock. This has taken off in many countries, including Thailand, India, Kenya and South Africa, and is used as a source of protein for feed and food production.

Urban farming initiatives may be closer to you than you realise. The European Economic and Social Committee supports the urban beekeeping movement. The initiative hopes to raise awareness about the importance of bees for the environment and is linked to the Good Food Strategy, promoting the development and conservation of green spaces and biodiversity.

Before leaving, participants replied to our Sli.do poll asking about their awareness of urban farming initiatives in their neighbourhood:

Source: Results, Sli.do poll, Foresight Club, 12 February 2021

An ‘At a Glance‘ paper on the topic, written by E. Noonan and M.S.A. Barreau, will soon be available on the think tank page.

 

Written by Anja Radjenovic,

© Maren Winter / Adobe Stock

In recent years, the migration policy of the European Union (EU) has focused on strict border controls and the externalisation of migration management through cooperation with third countries. Although states have the right to decide whether to grant non-EU nationals access to their territory, they must do this in accordance with the law and uphold individuals’ fundamental rights.

Not only do the practices and policies of stopping asylum-seekers and migrants in need of protection at or before they reach the European Union’s external borders (‘pushbacks’) erode EU values as enshrined in the EU Treaties, they may also violate international and European humanitarian and human rights laws.

National human rights institutions, international bodies and civil society organisations regularly report cases of pushbacks at the European Union’s land and sea borders. According to those reports, pushbacks often involve excessive use of force by EU Member States’ authorities and EU agencies operating at external borders, and degrading and inhuman treatment of migrants and their arbitrary detention.

The European Parliament has repeatedly called for Member States and EU agencies to comply with fundamental rights in their activities to protect the EU’s external borders. Several international organisations and other stakeholders have condemned or filed legal actions against the practice of pushbacks carried out at the EU’s external borders. In September 2020, the European Commission presented a pact on migration and asylum, including a proposal on pre-entry screening of third-country nationals at EU external borders, in a bid to address these potential breaches of fundamental rights.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Pushbacks at the EU’s external borders‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Rafał Mańko (1st edition),

© Jürgen Fälchle / Adobe Stock

On 14 February 2017, the European Commission adopted a proposal amending Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 (the ‘Comitology Regulation’) in order to increase the transparency and accountability of the decision-making process leading to the adoption of implementing acts. The main elements of the proposal include amending the voting rules for the Appeal Committee (AC) in order to reduce the risk of a no opinion scenario and to clarify the positions of the Member States, providing for the possibility of a further referral to the AC at ministerial level if no opinion is delivered, and increasing the transparency of the comitology procedure by making public the votes of the Member States’ representatives in the AC. Following the opinions of a number of committees, submitted in the previous and current terms, on 12 October 2020, Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs adopted its report. It proposes to oblige Member States’ representatives to give reasons for their vote, abstention or for any absence from the vote, and where particularly sensitive areas are concerned (consumer protection, health and safety of humans, animals or plants, or the environment), also case-specific detailed reasons for their vote or abstention. Other amendments concern better accessibility to the comitology register to increase transparency for citizens, and empowering Parliament and Council to call on the Commission to submit a proposal amending the basic act, where they deem it appropriate to review the implementing powers granted to the Commission. A partial first-reading report was adopted on 17 December 2020 in plenary and the file was referred back to the Legal Affairs Committee for interinstitutional negotiations.

Complete version

• Reform of the Comitology Regulation (1st edition)

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers Committee responsible: Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) COM(2017) 085
14.2.2017 Rapporteur: to be appointed following resignation of József Szájer (EPP, Hungary) 2017/0035(COD) Shadow rapporteurs: Bettina Vollath (S&D, Austria)
Pascal Durand (Renew, France)
Marie Toussaint (Greens/EFA, France)
Angel Dzhambazki (ECR, Bulgaria) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Appointment of new rapporteur and trilogue negotiations

Written by Rosamund Shreeves,

Credit: UN Women/Yihui Yuan.

International Women’s Day on 8 March is a time for celebrating women’s achievements and a time to measure and commit to parity, globally and in our own European region, countries and communities. This year, Covid‑19 is once again an uninvited guest to the celebration, bringing with it a multitude of unwanted gifts – and a few that may turn out to be useful – if we use them well.

Over the past 12 months, the pandemic has illustrated the contributions and capacities of women leaders and decision-makers, and the women making pioneering breakthroughs in vaccine research. It has also opened our eyes to the work that women do to keep vital public services running. Data from the European Union’s Gender Equality Institute (EIGE) shows that women make up 76 % of the 49 million healthcare workers in the EU, 86 % of personal care workers, 93 % of childcare workers, and 82 % of cashiers. However, the data also show that women’s contribution to this vital work is undervalued and badly paid. Many of the women working in these sectors are amongst the lowest paid workers in the EU. Many work irregular hours in poor working conditions, with lower entitlements to social security and safety nets. Over the past year, these women have been ‘on the frontline’ of the fight against Covid‑19, in roles that involve greater risk of exposure to the virus and greater risk of becoming infected. Research finds that women make up the majority of confirmed cases of Covid‑19 in healthcare facilities. The pandemic could be an opportunity to rethink the value of this work, invest in our health and care infrastructure, and improve pay and working conditions.

Video: Covid-19 increases women’s unpaid care work

The pandemic has also exposed the amount of ‘invisible’ work women are doing to keep families running and how this affects their own wellbeing, paid work and economic independence. Before the pandemic, women in the EU were doing a disproportionate share of the unpaid childcare and domestic work – on average 13 hours more than men every week. This gender gap in care has remained stubbornly persistent over time, even as increasing numbers of women have entered the labour market. It remains one of the main reasons why women are more likely than men to be out of the labour market or working in part-time roles that offer more flexibility to combine work and family life. Measures taken to curb the spread of the virus, in particular the closure of schools, nurseries and day care centres for people with disabilities, have now shifted responsibility for care work back to families, just when the unprecedented move to teleworking has concentrated professional activities in the home. Survey data from Eurofound shows that these changes are having particularly significant impacts on women. During lockdowns, men have been taking on more domestic work, especially childcare, which could be a positive sign for the future. However, women have shouldered the lion’s share of the additional caring and domestic work, including home schooling, even when they are also engaged in paid work. This is already taking a toll on women’s mental health and work-life balance and could have long-term impacts on their jobs and careers. Reports from countries including Germany, Hungary and Italy already show that mothers have ‘voluntarily’ withdrawn from paid work because of the lack of childcare – or been made redundant by their employer.

It should not be forgotten that many households themselves employ domestic workers, predominantly women, often from migrant backgrounds, whose jobs have also been vulnerable as a result of lockdowns. Intersectional data from the United Kingdom shows that workers in shut-down sectors of the economy are more likely than average to be Black Asian and minority ethnic, women and part-time workers. Overall, Eurofound is signalling that, unlike the 2008 financial and economic and financial crisis, when the largest job losses were among men, women working in low-paid service sectors hard hit by lockdowns, such as hospitality, retail and tourism, now face major job losses. EIGE’s initial research findings on the socio-economic impacts of the pandemic, published on 5 March 2021, are that 40 % of the 2.2 million jobs lost by women across the EU in the first wave of the pandemic were in retail, accommodation, residential care, domestic work and clothing manufacturing. In addition, despite rising employment in the summer, women gained only half as many jobs as men.

There are therefore increasing concerns that the pandemic could reverse the progress made in closing the gender employment gap – and progress towards gender equality overall. One positive gift from the pandemic would be if the gender gaps and inequalities it has exposed and exacerbated acted as a catalyst for action. There are signs that governments are recognising some of the gendered impacts of the pandemic itself and the measures taken to combat it. For example, the United Nations’ Covid‑19 global gender response tracker, which is monitoring measures taken by governments shows that all 27 EU Member States have adopted at least one gender-sensitive measure in response to the Covid‑19 crisis. Most EU Member States have adopted at least one measure directly addressing the surge in domestic violence under lockdowns. However, the UN’s review of measures adopted in Europe concludes that the relatively low number of labour market, fiscal and economic measures aimed at helping women to keep their jobs or re-enter the labour market is a major gap in the response so far. Researchers are also cautioning that women and women’s organisations have been under-represented in the task forces that take decisions on policies – and often miss the gender dimension.

The European Parliament’s resolution on the gender perspective in the Covid‑19 crisis and post-crisis period, as well as many experts invited to participate in its events to mark International Women’s Day, stress the need for a gender-sensitive response to the pandemic. They note that it will be particularly important to ensure that gender mainstreaming and gender budgeting principles are reflected in all aspects of the response to Covid‑19, including the targeting of EU funding and the priorities set in national recovery plans, to ensure an equitable recovery that contributes to gender equality and improves lives.

EPRS publications for International Women’s Day

Covid-19: The need for a gendered response, Briefing by Rosamund Shreeves, with Giulio Sabbati, February 2021

In the midst of the current Covid‑19 pandemic, adopting a gender perspective may seem a secondary concern. However, evidence shows that pandemics affect women and men differently and that it is essential to recognise these differences in order to understand the impacts on individuals and communities and to respond effectively and equitably.

The coronavirus crisis: An emerging gender divide?, Infographic by Marie Lecerf and Giulio Sabbati, March 2021

The European Union remains severely hit by the coronavirus crisis, whose impact extends far beyond public health. Employment and working conditions have undergone major upheavals, raising the issue of a possible reversal of progress on gender equality. This infographic aims to shed light on the socioeconomic and psychological impacts of the pandemic on women, through the lens of the transformation of the labour market, work-life balance and well-being. It is based on Eurostat data and a study conducted by Eurofound on living and working during the pandemic.

Women in politics in the EU: State of play, Briefing by Rosamund Shreeves and Martina Prpic, with Eulalia Claros, February 2021

The EU has committed to achieving gender balance in political representation. Since EU policies can influence the lives of women and men in different ways, it is important that both sexes have equal representation in posts that can make a difference. The coronavirus pandemic has shone a spotlight on the need for gender balance in decision-making.

Women in front of and behind the camera: Still struggling with inequality

The Bauhaus movement: Where are the women?

Thematic digest: We are strong: women leading the fight against Covid-19, Expert and research publications

Multilingual graphics Women in the European Parliament by Member State

Български (jpg | pdf) – Español (jpg | pdf) – Čeština (jpg | pdf) – Dansk (jpg | pdf) – Deutsch (jpg | pdf) – Eesti Keel (jpg | pdf) – Ελληνικά (jpg | pdf) – English (jpg | pdf) – Français (jpg | pdf) – Gaeilge (jpg | pdf) – Hrvatski (jpg | pdf) – Italiano (jpg | pdf) – Latviešu Valoda (jpg | pdf) – Lietuvių Kalba (jpg | pdf) – Magyar (jpg | pdf) – Malti (jpg | pdf) – Nederlands (jpg | pdf) – Polski (jpg | pdf) – Português (jpg | pdf) – Română (jpg | pdf) – Slovenčina (jpg | pdf) – Slovenščina (jpg | pdf) – Suomi (jpg | pdf) – Svenska (jpg | pdf)

Image taken from the EPRS Briefing on Women in politics in the EU: State of play Employment shifts due to the coronavirus crisis

Български (jpg | pdf) – Español (jpg | pdf) – Čeština (jpg | pdf) – Dansk (jpg | pdf) – Deutsch (jpg | pdf) – Eesti Keel (jpg | pdf) – Ελληνικά (jpg | pdf) – English (jpg | pdf) – Français (jpg | pdf) – Gaeilge (jpg | pdf) – Hrvatski (jpg | pdf) – Italiano (jpg | pdf) – Latviešu Valoda (jpg | pdf) – Lietuvių Kalba (jpg | pdf) – Magyar (jpg | pdf) – Malti (jpg | pdf) – Nederlands (jpg | pdf) – Polski (jpg | pdf) – Português (jpg | pdf) – Română (jpg | pdf) – Slovenčina (jpg | pdf) – Slovenščina (jpg | pdf) – Suomi (jpg | pdf) – Svenska (jpg | pdf)Image taken from the EPRS Infographic The coronavirus crisis: An emerging gender divide? Deaths due to coronavirus in the EU by the sex of citizens

Български (jpg | pdf) – Español (jpg | pdf) – Čeština (jpg | pdf) – Dansk (jpg | pdf) – Deutsch (jpg | pdf) – Eesti Keel (jpg | pdf) – Ελληνικά (jpg | pdf) – English (jpg | pdf) – Français (jpg | pdf) – Gaeilge (jpg | pdf) – Hrvatski (jpg | pdf) – Italiano (jpg | pdf) – Latviešu Valoda (jpg | pdf) – Lietuvių Kalba (jpg | pdf) – Magyar (jpg | pdf) – Malti (jpg | pdf) – Nederlands (jpg | pdf) – Polski (jpg | pdf) – Português (jpg | pdf) – Română (jpg | pdf) – Slovenčina (jpg | pdf) – Slovenščina (jpg | pdf) – Suomi (jpg | pdf) – Svenska (jpg | pdf)Graphic taken from the EPRS Briefing ‘Covid-19: The need for a gendered response‘, March 2021.

Written by Tambiama Madiega (1st edition),

© Comugnero Silvana / Adobe Stock

The rules governing the provision of digital products and services in the EU have remained largely unchanged since the adoption of the e-Commerce Directive in 2000, while digital technologies and business models continue to evolve rapidly and new societal challenges are emerging, such as the spread of counterfeit goods, hate speech and disinformation online. Against this backdrop, in December 2020, the European Commission tabled a new legislative proposal on a digital services act to amend the e-Commerce Directive and set higher standards of transparency and accountability, to govern the way platform service providers moderate content, advertising and algorithmic processes. Parliament has already voiced strong support for revision of the EU rules applicable to online actors. EU lawmakers will now assess whether the Commission’s proposal is an appropriate response to the challenges identified and will work towards defining Parliament’s own position on the proposal, which is the first step in the EU’s interinstitutional legislative process.

Complete version

• Digital services act (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a single market for digital services (digital services act) and amending Directive 2000/31/EC Committee responsible: Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) COM(2020) 825
15.12.2020 Rapporteur: Christel Schaldemose (S&D, Denmark) 2020/0361(COD) Shadow rapporteurs: Arba Kokalari (EPP, Sweden)
Dita Charanzová (Renew, Czechia)
Alessandra Basso (ID, Italy)
Adam Bielan (ECR, Poland)
Alexandra Geese (Greens/EFA, Germany)
Martin Schirdewan (The Left, Germany) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Publication of draft report

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© New Africa / Adobe Stock

As the second wave of the coronavirus passes, new infections and the death rate are currently both in decline globally. At the same time, countries across the world have begun vaccination programmes. In parallel, fears that the impact of the disease will continue, as some new, highly contagious mutations of the virus have spread, have lead governments to adopt additional preventive border restrictions and lockdowns. Among many debates on the subject, two stand out – the slower vaccination rate in the EU compared to the UK and US, and the imbalance between rich and poor countries in the availability of vaccines, with a third debate, on vaccination passports, emerging rapidly.

This note offers links to recent commentaries, studies and reports from international think tanks on the pandemic and related issues. A previous item from this series on the coronavirus was published in earlier in February 2021.

Vaccines: How to use market-based incentives to ramp up production
Centre for European Policy Studies, February 2021

Why the EU’s vaccine strategy will pay off in the end
Carnegie Europe, February 2021

Will Covid accelerate productivity growth?
Bruegel, February 2021

Why has the EU been so slow to roll out a Covid vaccination programme?
Bruegel, January 2021

A global pandemic alarm bell
Bruegel, January 2021

What do vaccination passports mean for Europe?
Bruegel, January 2021

Résilience: La nouvelle boussole
Bruegel, January 2021

Corporate insolvencies during Covid-19: Keeping calm before the storm
Bruegel, January 2021

Lessons from the battleground: EU strategic autonomy after the ‘vaccine wars’
European Policy Centre, February 2021

Why the Covid-19 crisis calls for a revamped Better Regulation agenda
European Policy Centre, February 2021

Will corporate debt choke the post-Covid-19 recovery?
European Policy Centre, January 2021

Europe’s post-pandemic strategy for the WHO
European Council on Foreign Relations, February 2021

The EU’s misguided export regulation on vaccines
European Council on Foreign Relations, February 2021

All the rage: The pandemic’s emotional politics
European Council on Foreign Relations, February 2021

The geopolitics of Covid vaccines in Europe’s eastern neighbourhood
European Council on Foreign Relations, January 2021

Corona pandemic shows that many states are poorly prepared
Bertelsmann Stiftung, January 2021

With European unity and empathy against Covid-19
Bertelsmann Stiftung, December 2020

L’impact de la Covid-19 sur le monde du travail
Confrontations Europe, January 2021

How Greece can recover from Covid
Centre for European Reform, February 2021

Ditchley conference report: Covid-19, the global economy and the return of power politics
Centre for European Reform, January 2021

Prioritizing equity after Covid-19
Chatham House, February 2021

The dysfunctional vaccine rollout is creating even more opportunities for cybercriminals
Council on Foreign Relations, February 2021

A guide to global Covid-19 vaccine efforts
Council on Foreign Relations, February 2021

Covid-19 death rate rising in Africa
Council on Foreign Relations, January 2021

What does the World Health Organization do?
Council on Foreign Relations, January 2021

How the Chinese state mobilized civil society to fight Covid-19
Brookings Institution, February 2021

How Covid-era innovation can build more equitable education systems
Brookings Institution, February 2021

Covid-19: Quels impacts sur le climat?
Institut des relations internationales et stratégiques, February 2021

Les relations Europe-Afrique à l’aune de la pandémie de Covid-19: État des lieux et perspectives
Fondation Robert Schuman, February 2021

What the vaccine row tells us about the Commission’s worth
Friends of Europe, February 2021

Adapt or perish: Lessons from the pandemic
Friends of Europe, February 2021

Covid-19: How can we get it under control in 2021?
Friends of Europe, February 2021

La crise Covid, le transport stratégique et ses perspectives européennes
Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique, February 2021

Covid-19: Comment faire face à la peur vaccinale?
Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique, December 2020

Saving the red-eye to Ibiza: How vaccine corridors can open up travel again
Foreign Policy Centre, February 2021

Pandemie, Regierungskrise und Wahlkampfauftakt in den Niederlanden
Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, February 2021

Political risk: Germany pledges to speed up vaccinations
Polish Institute of International Affairs, February 2021

An abrupt awakening to the realities of a pandemic: Learning lessons from the onset of Covid-19 in the EU and Finland
Finnish Institute of International Affairs, January 2021

Reforming multilateralism in post-COVID times: For a more regionalised, binding and legitimate United Nations
Instituto Affari Internationali, January 2021

The Post-Covid-19 trajectory for Algeria, Morocco and the Western Sahara
Instituto Affari Internationali, January 2021

Learning from Covid-19: Implications for the EU response to human smuggling
Instituto Affari Internationali, December 2020

How Covid-19 changed the future
European Union Institute for Security Studies, December 2020

Les européens devant l’hésitation vaccinale
Institut Jacques Delors, December 2020

Covid-19 pandemic: Insights from Rand
Rand Corporation, February 2021

An evaluation of the Turkish economy during Covid-19
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, January 2021

Impact and potential consequences of Covid-19: Global and European considerations
Economic Policy Institute, January 2021.

Read this briefing on ‘Coronavirus: Vaccination debates‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Clare Ferguson,

© European Union 2018 – Source : EP

Continuing to mark International Women’s Day 2021, the agenda for the first plenary session of March 2021 kicks off with a ceremony celebrating women’s day, not least their role in fighting on the frontline of the coronavirus pandemic. Meanwhile, it is no secret that the pandemic has also had a highly gendered impact on women, with women more likely to suffer a negative impact in their professional and personal lives. Women continue to be under-represented in business and political leadership – even in the European Parliament. Nevertheless, the Parliament has already made recommendations on the need for a gendered response to Covid‑19, such as the adoption of effective gender mainstreaming tools that could mitigate the negative consequences and contribute to halting the reversal of gender equality.

A joint debate on the European Semester scheduled for Wednesday morning will look at the economic outlook for Europe’s recovery from the pandemic, with an emphasis expected on social and employment policy. The Council and European Commission are also expected to make statements on the action plan for the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights. This will be followed by the formal signature, by the presidents of the EU institutions, of the recently endorsed Joint Declaration on the Conference of the Future of Europe, an initiative long supported by Parliament, which now begins its work to engage with citizens’ concerns. As direct representatives elected by people in EU countries, Parliamentarians are keen to contribute along with citizens themselves, to building a truly Citizen’s Union.

Even before the current pandemic, investment in the EU had yet to recover to pre-financial crisis levels. On Tuesday morning, Members will debate a joint Budgetary Committee and Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee legislative report on the proposed InvestEU programme, designed to streamline investment support and now adjusted to tackle the post-coronavirus investment landscape. Parliament has been fierce in its advocacy for adequate resources to finance the recovery, securing a €1 billion top-up for the EU guarantee and measures that could mobilise an extra €35-40 billion in investment through incorporating European Investment Bank legacy portfolios. Thanks to the Parliament’s efforts, the proposals now include the possibility for Member States to use InvestEU funding to provide capital support for otherwise viable small and medium-sized businesses that have been hard-hit by the pandemic.

Also under consideration before the current pandemic, Parliament has long supported moves to establish a coherent EU health programme – following through by negotiating an additional €3.4 billion for the EU4Health programme during the 2021‑2027 multiannual financial framework negotiations. Parliament will proceed with its first reading of the proposed legislation to establish the programme on Tuesday morning. While the programme will focus on combating cross-border health threats, ensuring affordable medicine and promoting stronger health systems, it is expected that Parliament will steer the programme towards support for measures with clear EU added value.

Parliament elects the European Ombudsman at the beginning of each parliamentary term, and is due to discuss an own-initiative report on the Ombudsman’s annual activity report for 2019 on Tuesday afternoon, in the presence of the Ombudsman herself, Emily O’Reilly. The annual report covers a wide range of issues where the Ombudsman has investigated complaints and initiated enquiries into possible maladministration by EU institutions or agencies. In 2019, these included senior EU staff appointments, ongoing transparency issues in the Council and Eurogroup, and the treatment of disabled people and asylum-seekers. While the institutions complied with the Ombudsman’s recommendations in the interests of good administration in most cases, the annual report makes some key recommendations for further action on: decision-making accountability in the Council; public access to documents; interviews with asylum-seekers; appointment procedures; and on citizens’ participation in EU policy-making. Parliament’s Petitions Committee (PETI) is largely in agreement with the Ombudsman’s assessment, particularly with regard to remarks concerning the Council and the transparency register.

Finally, while fisheries control is an exclusive EU competence under the common fisheries policy, EU countries are responsible for controlling their fishing activities, with the European Commission checking that they fulfill their responsibilities correctly. Advances in technology allow more effective controls to protect fish stocks, and the rules are therefore being revised. On Tuesday afternoon, Members will debate a legislative report on this revision from the Fisheries Committee that supports the new rules in general, while seeking to protect small fishing vessels, and reserving the imposition of CCTV onboard for those who commit infringements.

Written by Suzana Anghel,

© Adobe Stock

On 26 February 2021, EU leaders met for a second video-conference session to discuss security and defence and the southern neighbourhood. They reaffirmed their commitment to implementing the 2019-2024 Strategic Agenda, by increasing the EU’s ability to act autonomously and strengthening its resilience through taking ‘more responsibility for its security’. They also expressed their wish to deepen the transatlantic bond with the US and through NATO. In line with past meetings dedicated to security and defence, the Secretary General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, joined the EU leaders to discuss EU-NATO cooperation.

Video-conference of the members of the European Council

The October 2020 Leaders’ Agenda had listed security and defence as well as health as items for discussion in February 2021. A discussion on the southern neighbourhood was only subsequently added to the agenda. While health was discussed on 25 February, with European Parliament President David Sassoli addressing the European Council on the same day, discussions at the 26 February 2021 video-conference of the Heads of State or Government focused on security and defence and the southern neighbourhood. The title ‘special’ European Council specified on the Leaders’ Agenda indicates that the original intention was to organise a physical meeting in Brussels, but this had to be abandoned owing to the difficult EU-wide epidemiological situation. Accordingly, the EU leaders did not adopt conclusions, but released a statement, outlining medium to longer-term commitments (see Table 1).

Table 1 – New European Council commitments and requests with a specific time schedule

Policy area Action Actor Schedule Security and defence Keep under regular review European Council 2021-2022 Security and defence Report on the implementation of the cybersecurity strategy High Representative June 2021 Security and defence Present a technology roadmap European Commission October 2021 Security and defence Continue work on the Strategic Compass High Representative / Member States March 2022 Security and defence

The European Council returned to discussing security and defence policy, a rolling item on its agenda between 2012 and 2018, and committed to reviewing this regularly. European Council President Charles Michel stressed that the EU wanted ‘to act more strategically’ and to increase its ‘ability to act autonomously’ while continuing to deepen partnerships, including though a renewed transatlantic dialogue on security and defence with the Biden Administration.

The EU’s efforts to take more responsibility for its security go hand in hand with the deepening and strengthening of existing partnerships, especially with NATO. Charles Michel stressed that the EU and NATO shared ‘common strategic interests’ but also common threats, such as ‘cyber, hybrid and disinformation’ threats, for which both organisations needed to strengthen their resilience as well as their cooperation. He spoke of a ‘strong partnership which requires strong partners’, while NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg affirmed that EU-NATO cooperation had reached unprecedented levels in recent years, in particular on issues such as resilience and cybersecurity. However, a durable solution to maritime boundary delimitation in the eastern Mediterranean and to the Cyprus problem would allow further normalisation of the EU-NATO relationship. This is key, as the two organisations are developing a new strategic concept (NATO) on the one hand, and a Strategic Compass (the EU) on the other, making information-sharing vital.

The High Representative, Josep Borrell, presented the results of the first ever EU threat analysis, conducted with input from the Member States’ intelligence agencies between June and November 2020. This analysis represents the first step and the foundation for the forthcoming strategic compass. The exercise is entering its second and most sensitive phase, that of developing policy orientations and setting objectives in four areas, namely: i) crisis management; ii) preparedness and resilience; iii) capability development; and iv) partnerships. This second phase, which will last until mid-2021, requires a vision and guidelines from the European Council, which has tasked the High Representative with continuing the work on developing a strategic compass ‘making use of the entire EU toolbox’. In this way, EU leaders would have ownership of the process, something that was missing in 2016 when the European Council ‘welcomed‘, but did not endorse, the EU’s Global Strategy. The third phase of this exercise will be dedicated to developing the strategic compass document, expected by March 2022.

The European Council also recognised that ‘significant steps’ had already been undertaken to boost European defence cooperation, and called for it to be further deepened, not least in the area of crisis management where ‘improved force generation’ is needed. A set of new instruments – the coordinated annual review on defence (CARD), the European Defence Fund (EDF), permanent structured cooperation (PESCO) and the European Peace Facility (EPF) – have become a reality and are about to be implemented. The European Council called for ‘swift operationalisation’ of the EPF and ‘full use’ of PESCO. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen emphasised the importance of these tools in tackling existing fragmentation and the duplication of capabilities, fostering interoperability and building synergies between civilian, defence and space industries. The EU leaders also underlined the importance of countering cyber-threats and building cyber-resilience, and invited the co-legislators to act ‘swiftly’ and ‘take work forward’ on the revised directive on security of network and information systems. Addressing EU leaders, the Parliament’s President, David Sassoli, welcomed ‘the shift from a common defence policy to a fully fledged defence system’ and the initiative to develop a strategic compass by 2022. He reiterated Parliament’s view that the EU must ‘improve [its] understanding of the new threats and build up our common resilience, in order to become strategically autonomous’.

Southern neighbourhood

EU leaders discussed the ‘political and strategic nature’ of the partnership with the southern neighbourhood and reaffirmed their attachment to their previous conclusions from December 2020. They called on the Council to implement the joint communication from the Commission and the High Representative on a renewed and reinforced partnership with the southern neighbourhood, while taking into consideration the ‘common challenges’ and the ‘shared opportunities’. Josep Borrell emphasised that the EU is ‘closely intertwined’ with its southern neighbourhood but that the ‘gap between the two shores of the Mediterranean has been increasing’, heightening the urgent need to deepen cooperation. Charles Michel stressed that the EU and NATO want ‘more stability and more predictability’ in their neighbourhood.

In his address to the European Council, EP President David Sassoli underlined that Parliament welcomed the new agenda, which confirmed ‘the importance the EU attaches to its southern neighbours’. He stated that the Parliament, which holds the presidency of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Union for the Mediterranean, was determined to help strengthen inter-parliamentary dialogue on challenging issues such as fighting climate change and overcoming socio-economic disparities.

Other items

Charles Michel reiterated the European Council’s condemnation of the imprisonment of Alexei Navalny and demanded his release. He stressed that, earlier in the week, the Foreign Affairs Council had agreed to impose restrictive measures against those responsible for the ‘arrest and sentencing’ of Mr Navalny under the newly introduced EU global human rights sanctions regime.

The European Council also condemned the attack on the World Food Programme convoy in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and expressed sympathy for the families of the victims and solidarity with Italy.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Outcome of the European Council video-conference of 26 February 2021‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Lieve Van Woensel with Marcos Fernández Álvarez,

©phonlamaiphoto AdobeStock

Efforts to curb carbon emissions are falling short. As climate change impacts become all too clear, geoengineering is again in the spotlight. Some see it as a last-resort option to fight climate change. Detractors highlight the risks and uncertainties. Will governments end up ‘tinkering with Earth’s thermostat’?

In the summer of 2018, a succession of heatwaves struck the EU. Record-breaking temperatures were reported, and wildfires ravaged the continent. Sweden suffered the worst forest fires in modern history. In Greece, blazes swept through Attica and left 102 dead. For many citizens, wildfires threw the reality of climate change into sharp relief.

Under the Paris Agreement, nearly 200 countries pledged to keep global warming well below 2°C. But progress in curbing carbon emissions is not on track. If the current trend is not reversed, extreme weather events like the 2018 heatwave will become more and more frequent.

Large-scale tree planting and direct air capture (DAC) are being considered to boost these efforts. While these are steps in the right direction – and could end up playing a significant role in tackling climate change – DAC is currently very costly and energy intensive, and planting trees can only help so much.

Geoengineering refers to large-scale interventions in the global climate system, intended to counteract climate change. In 2008, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity called for a moratorium on geoengineering ‘until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities’. Only a decade later, scientists and policy-makers are again looking for last-ditch solutions to buy some extra time. Geoengineering is again in the spotlight.

Potential impacts and developments

Geoengineering includes a number of techniques of varying complexity, risk, and cost. In policy-making, the debate revolves almost entirely around ‘solar geoengineering‘. This describes a set of methods aimed at cooling the planet by reflecting a portion of solar energy back into space, or increasing the amount of solar radiation that escapes the Earth.

Cirrus clouds are known to have a warming effect on Earth. Seeding the atmosphere with innocuous Sahara dust would prevent the formation of cirrus clouds, and reduce global temperatures. Stratospheric aerosol injection entails creating an artificial sunshade by injecting reflective particles in the stratosphere. Its working principle is based in nature. The eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 pumped around 15 million tons of sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere; in the two years that followed, global temperatures decreased by about 1°C.

Solar geoengineering would be inexpensive, and scientists agree on its potential. Without actions to reduce emissions, the concentration of CO2 is likely to be double pre-industrial levels by 2060. In theory, getting rid of all cirrus clouds would balance the doubling of CO2; so would using stratospheric particle injection to reflect 2 % of the incoming solar radiation.

But there is no simple solution. For a start, solar geoengineering does not target the root of the problem; it only mitigates its effects. Solar geoengineering has never been tried before. If done incorrectly, it could cause even more global warming; and there could be other unintended consequences. The real challenge, however, may not be technological but rather one of governance. Climate politics is slow and complex; agreeing on using untested technology on a planetary scale could prove impossible. Who decides to use solar geoengineering? Who benefits from it? Who is affected?

Solar geoengineering is a geopolitical issue. The atmosphere has no borders, and the actions of some countries could affect the climate of others. To make matters worse, the science is not always conclusive. Some climate models suggest that almost every region in the world would benefit from solar geoengineering. Other scientists claim that since heat-trapping gases would still operate, temperatures would be more evenly distributed. This would reduce precipitation. Such a geoengineered world would be cooler, but also drier.

Many stakeholders see a moral hazard in solar geoengineering. All efforts are now focused on reducing emissions. With new tools in their climatic toolbox, governments could become complacent. Scientists insist that geoengineering is a supplement and not a substitute for mitigation. For example, solar geoengineering will not solve ocean acidification, and its impact on the water cycle is uncertain. Eventually, part or all the carbon released into the atmosphere will need to be recaptured, regardless of whether geoengineering is used or not.

To some citizens, meddling with the climate may sound like playing god. But across the world, about 40 % of the population live within 100 kilometres of the coast. Rising sea levels will threaten these coastal communities. Many regions will see more intense and frequent summer droughts, extreme weather events, and heavy rainfall. This could strain the fragile agricultural systems in the global South, sparking an exodus of climate refugees. As the consequences of climate change accumulate, the public’s opinion on solar geoengineering could shift rapidly.

Perceptions could be as important as the science. In 1962, the US started a programme to weaken hurricanes through seeding. In 1963, Hurricane Flora caused thousands of deaths in Cuba. The Cuban government accused the US of waging weather warfare. Similarly, any country suffering from extreme weather could blame geoengineers. In addition, geoengineering would be deployed progressively. Its effects would be initially difficult to decouple from natural fluctuations and climate change. Detractors would be quick to discard it as a failed idea.

There is a bigger problem, however. Once started, solar geoengineering cannot be stopped. Assuming that carbon emissions continued, the artificial sunshade would mask increasing amounts of extra warming. If geoengineering ceased abruptly – due to sabotage, technical, or political reasons – temperatures would shoot up rapidly. This termination shock would be catastrophic for humans and ecosystems.

Anticipatory policy-making

Solar geoengineering should only be considered as a last-resort solution. There is ample consensus that cutting emissions is the safest, most economical route to tackling climate change. The world needs a climate champion to accelerate these efforts, and the EU could lead the way.

Ultimately, the debate surrounding solar geoengineering could come down to balancing the risks and benefits. Solar geoengineering is not without risks. However, failing to mitigate climate change will also bring major new risks, disrupt ecosystems across the world, and hit the most vulnerable regions particularly hard.

Ironically, one reason that solar geoengineering may become necessary is the slow pace of international climate negotiations. Yet discussions on geoengineering are following the same path. Should solar geoengineering become necessary, governments need to be ready. The EU could help advance preparedness in this area; for example, by throwing its diplomatic weight behind multilateral initiatives moving in this direction.

The EU and its partners could promote an international governance framework for solar geoengineering. However, all parties must be on board. There are real risks that some of the countries worst affected by climate change could act unilaterally. Even if well-intentioned, this could create geopolitical tension. An international regulation system would ensure that no country ‘goes rogue’, and that geoengineering is not done for some at the expense of others.

The EU could also support research on solar geoengineering. Studies and trials may have been hampered by fears of promoting a quick ‘technofix’. But if geoengineering became necessary to avert disaster, its full effects must be known. Current techniques are criticised for posing a risk to biodiversity, precipitation patterns, and the ozone layer. A better understanding of these problems is the first step towards tackling them. Research could also help governance. For example, counter-geoengineering tools could serve as a deterrent against unilateral action.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘What if we could engineer the planet to help fight climate change?‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to Science and Technology podcast ‘What if we could engineer the planet to help fight climate change?’ on YouTube.