European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

Written by Alessandro D’Alfonso, Marianna Pari, Magdalena Sapała,

© European Union 2020: EC – Audiovisual Service; Claudio Centonze

The current multiannual financial framework (MFF), also known as the EU’s long-term budget, comes to an end this year. While the European Commission put forward a proposal for the next MFF and its financing in May 2018, agreement has so far proved elusive under legislative procedures that give a veto power to each Member State. In recent months, the unfinished negotiations have become intertwined with the debate on the creation of a common EU tool to counter the severe socio-economic consequences of the coronavirus pandemic. In May 2020, the Commission tabled revised proposals for a 2021-2027 MFF worth €1 100 billion and the EU own resources system, together with a proposal for a €750 billion recovery instrument, Next Generation EU (NGEU). The latter would be financed with funds borrowed on the capital markets to reinforce EU budgetary instruments in the 2021-2024 period. In addition, an amendment to the current MFF would provide a bridging solution to fund some recovery objectives this year already. The complex negotiations, which involve many different legislative procedures, are now entering a key phase. Issues expected to be under the spotlight include: the size of the MFF and of the NGEU and their interaction; reform of the financing system with the possible creation of new EU own resources; the breakdown of allocations (between policies and Member States); the contribution to the green transition; conditionalities (such as rules linking EU spending to the rule of law or to challenges identified in the European Semester); flexibility provisions to react to unforeseen events; the mix of grants and loans in the recovery instrument; and the repayment of funds borrowed under NGEU. European Council President Charles Michel has prepared a compromise package ahead of the July European Council meeting. If the Heads of State or Government find a political agreement, the next step will involve negotiations between Parliament and Council, since the former’s consent is required in order for the MFF Regulation to be adopted. Parliament, which has been ready to negotiate on the basis of a detailed position since November 2018, is a strong advocate of a robust MFF and an ambitious recovery plan. It has stressed that it will not give its consent if the package does not include reform of the EU financing system, introducing new EU own resources.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Negotiations on the next MFF and the EU recovery instrument: Key issues ahead of the July European Council‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Wilhelm Lehmann and Christian Salm,

© Communautés européennes 1985, 1990 – EP

The consensus among most historians of European integration and political scientists is that Jacques Delors, who served as President of the European Commission from 1985 to 1995, was the most successful holder of that post to date. His agenda and accomplishments include the EU single market, the Single European Act, Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) and the rapid integration of the former German Democratic Republic into the European Community. His combination of coherent agenda-setting and strong negotiating skills, acquired through long experience of trade union bargaining and years of ministerial responsibilities in turbulent times, puts Delors above other Commission Presidents, whether in terms of institutional innovation or the development of new Europe-wide policies. He also showed himself able to react swiftly to external events, notably the collapse of the Soviet bloc, whilst building Europe’s credibility on the international stage.

This Briefing records Delors’ life across its crucial stages, from trade union activist, senior civil servant, French politician, and Member of the European Parliament, to the helm of the European Commission, where he left the greatest individual impact on European integration history to date. It also traces the most important ideas that guided Delors in his national and European roles. Finally, it describes the political events and key actors which made Delors’ decade in office a time of important decisions and progress in the process of European integration and, in doing so, it draws on recent academic literature and on speeches Delors gave in the European Parliament.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Jacques Delors: Architect of the modern European Union‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Lieve Van Woensel and Sara Suna Lipp

Nanotechnology, making it possible to manipulate matter on a ‘nano’ scale, emerged in the early 1980s. More recently, nanotechnology has become the intersection at which several scientific disciplines converge. The convergence of physics with biology has led to many scientific discoveries and nanotechnology applications, transforming the future of biology, and providing new solutions for medicine and healthcare. These include nano-sized artificial motors, built using biological molecules; while nanomedicine targets cancer cells, delivers drugs and battles antibiotic resistance bacteria. The recent coronavirus crisis demonstrated nanotechnology applications’ importance to finding fast and innovative solutions, such as for the detection and identification of viruses.

The online STOA workshop ‘The big future of nanotechnology in medicine‘, proposed and chaired by Lina Gálvez Muñoz (S&D, Spain) and STOA Panel member, was held on 25 June 2020. The workshop highlighted recent developments in nanotechnology and nanomedicine and provided a view of consumer perception and ethics in the field, as well as responsible research and innovation. Lina Gálvez Muñoz introduced the event, emphasising that the discussion on nanotechnology is even more relevant in the light of the recent coronavirus crisis. She welcomed the expert speakers: Sonia Contera, Professor at the Oxford Physics Department and author of Nano Comes to Life; Laura M. Lechuga, Professor at ICN2 and head of the CONVAT project; Maurizio Salvi, Senior Policy Analyst in the Scientific Advice Mechanism (SAM) Unit, European Commission; and Roxanne Van Giesen, Senior researcher in consumer research at CentERdata.

'Many ethical and policy-making challenges are linked to nanotechnology. It is important to have regulatory framewo… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…—
STOA Panel (@EP_ScienceTech) June 25, 2020

 

Keynote speaker Sonia Contera provided a historical perspective of developments in nanotechnology. She mentioned that, based on consumer and public responses, nanotechnology was one of the first technological sectors in the EU with a formal agenda for ethics and responsible innovation, pioneering this approach in the world. She explained that a new kind of nanotechnology is bringing together synthetic biology with computer sciences and physics, thus embracing biological complexity to create novel materials, drugs and future applications. In this context, she reviewed recent developments such as new antibacterials, cancer immunotherapies and vaccines, 3D-printed organs or organs-on-a-chip. Sonia Contera concluded by stating that the approach of science and technology is changing by adapting to the complexity of nature and highlighted the importance of diversity and multidisciplinarity in science to face the challenges of the 21st century.

The coronavirus crisis has shown that novel diagnostic tools for rapid, sensitive and specific testing and population screening are essential to tackling infectious outbreaks. Laura M. Lechuga, head of the CONVAT project (one of the first projects funded by the Horizon 2020 European Union framework programme to fight Covid‑19), explained that there are currently three different Covid‑19 diagnostic strategies. These are: (i) detection of the virus RNA genetic material by nucleic acid tests; (ii) detection of the intact virus by antigen detection tests; and (iii) detection of antibodies by serological tests. She described the limitations of each test; and highlighted the aim of the CONVAT project: to create point-of-care nanobiosensors that can provide fast, sensitive, massive and quantitative diagnostics. She concluded that the distinctive feature of nanophotonic biosensors, where light interacts with viral particles to produce a specific and quantitative signal, ranks them as a highly competitive technology. These tools will also make it possible to monitor animal reservoirs for the detection of new emerging viruses.

'Material science and biology converge. Nanotechnology offers new approaches to understand ourselves and our enviro… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…—
STOA Panel (@EP_ScienceTech) June 25, 2020

 

Maurizio Salvi, argued that nanotechnology is one of the most successful examples of ethical, legal and societal issues being strongly reflected in the innovation strategy in the field. He explained that, from the very beginning, nanomedicine has addressed issues such as safety, informed consent, non-discrimination in terms of accessibility, and the precautionary principle from an ethical viewpoint. He pointed out that different nanomedicine applications are evaluated separately. Governance of the nanotechnology sector at the European level shows an effort to embed the complexity of implications into a global strategy, however no unique solution addresses these ethical, legal or societal issues, and debates on national and local level are highly important.

Consumer perception significantly influences the development of technologies, as society can either accept or reject a new technology, and nanotechnology is no exception. Roxanne Van Giesen, a senior researcher on consumer perception, explained that such opinions are based on affect or cognition. She noted that applications more closely linked to the body, such as food or water, are more likely to raise societal concern, and rely more on emotions than knowledge. Interestingly, however, her data on nanomedicine showed similar acceptance levels as for conventional medicine. This underlined the fact that people more readily accept technologies when they are used in health/life-saving applications. The acceptance and success of this technology, she concluded, greatly depends on communication and increasing factual knowledge by building on existing knowledge of the target audience.

“With the coronavirus crisis, it is now more important than ever to discuss the role of nanotechnology in medicine.… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…—
STOA Panel (@EP_ScienceTech) June 25, 2020

 

In the subsequent discussion, the importance of diversity and interdisciplinarity in science emerged as a key message. Public trust and consumer perception can only be influenced in a positive way if discussions are inclusive. Furthermore, the success of a nanotechnology application depends on the full synergy of different disciplines from the beginning of research and development to the end product.

In her concluding remarks, Petra De Sutter (Greens/EFA, Belgium) and STOA Panel member underlined the many ethical and policy-making challenges linked to nanotechnology. She pointed out that, as with artificial intelligence, policy-making in the nanotechnology field should follow a risk-based approach dependent on applications. She highlighted the importance of regulatory frameworks that are evidence-based and promote public trust. Petra De Sutter concluded the workshop by pointing out that the legislative sector also needs to move from reductionism to acknowledging complexity and interdisciplinarity in order to address complex technologies such as nanotechnology.

The full recording of the meeting is available here.

 

Click to view slideshow.

Written by Jaan Soone,

© Buffaloboy / Adobe Stock

In the December 2019 European Green Deal communication, which aims to reboot the EU’s efforts to tackle challenges related to climate change and the environment, the European Commission proposed to review the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Directive.

The Directive was adopted in 2014 to encourage the development of alternative fuel filling stations and charging points in EU countries, and required Member States to put in place development plans for alternative fuels infrastructure. However, according to a 2017 Commission evaluation, the plans did not provide sufficient certainty for fully developing the alternative fuels infrastructure network, and development has been uneven across the EU.

Car-makers and alternative fuels producers, clean energy campaigners and the European Parliament have called for the revision of the Directive, to ensure that sufficient infrastructure is in place in line with efforts to reduce emissions in the transport sector and to help meet the climate and environment goals set out in the Paris Agreement and the Green Deal.

On 27 May 2020, in response to the coronavirus pandemic, the Commission proposed the recovery plan for Europe in which it puts even greater focus on developing alternative fuel infrastructure, electric vehicles, hydrogen technology and renewable energy, repeating its intention to review the 2014 Directive.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Towards a revision of the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Directive‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Ralf Drachenberg,

© Shutterstock

Based on an updated ‘negotiating box’ presented by the President of the European Council, Charles Michel, on 10 July, the special meeting of the European Council on 17-18 July will aim at finding a political agreement on the EU recovery fund, entitled ‘Next Generation EU’, and the multiannual financial framework (MFF) for the 2021-27 seven-year financing period. It will be the first meeting of EU Heads of State or Government to take place in person since the coronavirus outbreak. The last such physical meeting of the European Council – held on 20-21 February, prior to the crisis –failed to reach a political agreement on the EU’s long-term budget. The revised negotiating box, taking into account the Commission’s updated MFF proposals – adopted alongside, and linked to, its recovery fund proposals – envisages a reduced MFF amounting to €1.074 trillion. Furthermore, Charles Michel’s proposals maintain the balance between loans and grants for the recovery fund proposed by the Commission. While a lot of pressure is being applied to find an agreement urgently, it remains to be seen whether EU leaders will agree a deal at this meeting or whether yet another meeting will be needed. In any case, the current MFF negotiations have already taken much longer than was originally intended, potentially jeopardising the timely launch of the EU’s new spending programmes.

1. Consultations aiming at a compromise on the 2021-27 MFF and the recovery plan

Following the video-conference meeting on 19 June – which was the first occasion for Heads of State or Government to discuss and obtain clarifications on the proposals put on the table by the Commission on a revised MFF and on the recovery fund – Charles Michel launched a series of consultations with all the Member States, thus opening the negotiation phase.

When presenting the results of the 19 June meeting, Mr Michel also expressed awareness of the need to swiftly reach political agreement on the long-term budget. As the President of the European Parliament, David Sassoli, recalled when addressing that meeting, a political agreement in the European Council, once reached, does not end the negotiations, which can only be concluded with an agreement between the Parliament and the Council. A further delay in the adoption of the next MFF regulation could indeed negatively impact the timely launch of new EU programmes, and thereby the recovery of the EU economy.

2. Charles Michel’s new ‘negotiating box’

Based on the consultations held over recent weeks, on 10 July, Charles Michel presented his updated ‘negotiating box’ – a document aimed at facilitating the gradual completion of negotiations to prepare the final deliberation in the European Council. This replaces the earlier one he had presented on 14 February 2020, which was unable to generate the necessary consensus.

As stressed during his press conference, the latest Michel proposals are firmly ‘grounded in the political priorities of the European Union, climate transformation, digital agenda, European values and a stronger Europe in the world’, as outlined in 2019-24 EU Strategic Agenda. They aim at ensuring recovery following the coronavirus crisis and at mitigating the economic and social consequences thereof. Thus, the current proposals are built around three broad objectives: ‘first convergence, second resilience and (then) transformation. Concretely, this means: repairing the damage caused by Covid‑19, reforming our economies and remodelling our societies.’

The revised negotiation package addresses six issues: i) the size of the MFF, ii) the size of the recovery fund, iii) the existence and size of rebates, iv) the balance between grants and loans, v) the allocation criteria for funding, and vi) the link between the recovery fund, its governance and the role of different institutions as well as national reforms.

1) Overall size of the MFF: President Michel’s current compromise proposal envisages a reduced MFF of €1.074 trillion, in comparison to the Commission’s proposal of €1.1 trillion. It remains very close to the figure presented by the European Council President at the special European Council meeting in February. However, the proposed size of the long-term budget falls far short of the European Parliament’s ambitions for the Union for the next seven years. As underlined in a joint letter to the European Council from five of the seven political groups in the European Parliament ahead of the 19 June meeting, ‘the Union must meet its objectives and tackle the challenges thrown at it by the 21st century. The only way forward is to adopt a robust MFF for 2021-2027. [However,] the revised Commission proposals on the next MFF fall short [on] a number of commitments and ambitions. We will continue to defend Parliament’s position in the upcoming negotiations and we will not compromise on the future of the European Union’. Speaking to EU leaders at that meeting, President Sassoli stressed that the Parliament considered the Commission’s ambitious proposal as a starting-point and ‘will accept no retreat from this initial position, but rather seek to improve it’.

2) Overall size of the recovery instrument: According to Charles Michel, the recovery fund would remain at €750 billion, as proposed by the Commission.

3) Rebates: The negotiating box also envisages the continuation of the rebates or ‘budget correction mechanisms as lump sums’ for Austria, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden. The European Commission proposed to phase out the current rebates over time, whilst the European Parliament has called for ‘the abolition of all rebates and corrections’.

4) The balance between loans and grants: The revised negotiating box aims to maintain the balance between loans and grants as proposed by the European Commission, i.e. €500 billion in grants and €250 billion in loans. As the grants include sub-categories relating to budgetary guarantees, in practice this translates into a three-way split of 58 % grants, 33 % loans, and 9 % budgetary guarantees (see EPRS Briefing on Next Generation Europe). As emphasised by the leaders of five political groups in the above-mentioned joint letter to the European Council, ‘we believe that [€]500 billion in grants is the bare minimum to provide a credible European response to such a huge crisis. We oppose any reduction’.

5) The allocation criteria for the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF): Charles Michel has reiterated that the objective is to ‘establish a real link between the Recovery Plan and the crisis’, and that funding should primarily go to countries and sectors most affected by the crisis. Therefore, 70 % of the RRF will be committed in 2021 and 2022 in accordance with the Commission’s allocation criteria. The remaining 30 % will be committed in 2023, taking into account the drop in GDP in 2020 and 2021. The total envelope should be disbursed by 2026.

6) Governance/conditionality: The last element of the revised negotiation package has three components:

• The reform and resilience national plans: Based on the Commission’s country-specific recommendations, Member States will be required to prepare national recovery and resilience plans for 2021-23, in line with the European Semester. The plans will be reviewed in 2022, and the assessment of these plans will be approved by the Council by qualified majority vote (QMV), on a proposal by the Commission. The European Council President’s proposal would give a stronger role to the Council throughout the process, with a view to ensuring better implementation and a greater sense of ownership. This clearly implies limited involvement of the European Parliament in the process, and a lack of parliamentary oversight of implementation. As stressed by the five main political groups in the European Parliament, ‘we … will continue to strive for the full involvement of Parliament in the establishment and delivery of the Recovery Instrument with the aim of increasing its transparency and democratic accountability. We will use all means at our disposal to achieve this objective’.
• Climate change: In order to reach the EU objective of climate neutrality by 2050, Charles Michel proposes to earmark 30 % of funding for climate-related projects. It is worth recalling that the topic of climate change was, prior to the pandemic, due to be discussed at the June 2020 European Council meeting, but that the point was absent from the video-conference discussions. This thus postponed to an unspecified point in time the debate on the end of the temporary exemption granted to Poland in December 2019, when the country announced that it could not commit to ‘the objective of achieving a climate neutral economy by 2050’. Securing the green envelope in the form proposed by the European Commission in May 2020 might enable Poland to commit to the 2050 climate objective, since the country would be among the top three beneficiaries of the Just Transition Fund.
• Rule of law and European values: President Michel proposes to establish a strong link between funding and respect for governance and rule of law, thus maintaining his proposal from February on a new budget conditionality, which would allow the Council to adopt sanctions in the form of withdrawal of funding by QMV. However, this new budget conditionality has been substantially weakened in comparison to the Commission proposal, which envisaged that a recommendation on measures to be applied to a failing Member State would be subject to reverse qualified majority in the Council (i.e. a qualified majority would be needed to block the proposal, rather than to approve it). In this context, Mr Michel also proposed to ‘increase the funding for Rule of Law and values projects, through additional financing for the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Justice, Rights and Values Programme, with a special focus on disinformation and to promote media plurality’. He stressed that the framework would result in ‘a system of permanent rule of law monitoring’.

Other elements of the negotiating box

• Repayments and own resources: Charles Michel proposes that repayments should start earlier, in 2026 rather than in 2028 as proposed by the Commission. In his view, this would enhance the pressure to introduce new own resources. He suggests that such own resources be introduced in three priority areas: plastic waste, a carbon adjustment mechanism and the digital levy. Subsequently, the Commission should come back with a revised proposal on the emissions trading system (ETS) and work would continue on a financial transaction mechanism. The introduction of new own resources is a crucial point for the European Parliament: as stressed in the joint letter from five political groups, ‘the Parliament would only give its consent to the next MFF if a basket of new own resources were to be introduced’.
• New Brexit reserve: The negotiating box also includes a new Brexit reserve of €5 billion to counter unforeseen consequences in the most affected Member States and sectors.
• Health: Funds for RescEU and health would increase in line with the Commission proposal, in order to respond to coronavirus and its consequences of.
• Cohesion funding: Charles Michel has also stated that, whilst his revised MFF proposal was lower than the Commission proposal, the allocations for cohesion money should remain at the same level. Thus, his negotiating box also includes cuts and scaling back of policy areas such as Horizon Europe (the research programme) and Erasmus+. This approach goes against some important priorities of the Parliament, and notably announcements made by President Sassoli after the June 2020 meeting, with ‘the Parliament aiming to increase the allocation for the Erasmus+ programme.

3. Recent developments

On 8 July, the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, invited the Presidents of the European Parliament, David Sassoli, the European Council, Charles Michel, and the Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, President-in-Office of the Council of the EU, to an Article 324 TFEU meeting, to discuss the state of play in the negotiations on the next MFF and Next Generation EU. The four Presidents stressed that it would be essential for EU Heads of State or Government to reach an agreement at the upcoming European Council meeting, in order to allow the inter-institutional negotiations to start. They agreed to stay in close contact throughout the coming weeks and months. A similar Article 324 TFEU meeting took place on 27 June 2013, during the negotiations on the 2014-20 MFF. Two significant differences ought to be pointed out. First, the earlier meeting only included the presidents of three institutions (Martin Schulz for the Parliament, Enda Kenny for the Council and José Manuel Barroso for the Commission) and did not include the President of the European Council (then Herman Van Rompuy). Indeed, the Treaty does not mention the European Council with respect to the MFF, and provides for discussion within the institutional triangle. Second, the earlier meeting took place after a political agreement had been found in the European Council meeting of 7-8 February 2013.

On the same day as that four-way meeting, Charles Michel also outlined the conclusions of the 19 June 2020 European Council meeting during the plenary session of the European Parliament, and discussed with MEPs the preparation of the European Council meeting of 17-18 July. During the debate, MEPs emphasised the crucial importance of adequate financing for the long-term budget, and the critical need to introduce new own resources for the EU budget, without which the Parliament would not give its consent. President Sassoli reiterated that ‘for the European Parliament, the proposal of the European Commission is not a point of arrival, but the minimum basis from which to start. We cannot and must not go backwards. We will fight for the success of this proposal with all the means at our disposal.’ MEPs reminded Mr Michel that ‘a deal in the Council is not the final deal’, as the Parliament will have a final vote before the 2021-27 MFF can enter into force.

Written by Katarzyna Sochacka and Clare Ferguson,

© European Union 2020 – Source : EP/Laurie DIEFFEMBACQ

The July 2020 plenary session was the fifth conducted with Members participating remotely, using the alternative voting procedure put in place in March by Parliament’s Bureau, although a majority were present in Brussels. During this session a number of Council and European Commission statements were debated, with the presentation of the programme of activities of the German Presidency a highlight. Members also debated the conclusions of the European Council meeting of 19 June and preparation of the meeting of 17-18 July 2020. Members heard Council and Commission statements on Union policy on preventing money laundering and terrorist financing, on the state of play of Council negotiations on the proposed regulation on the protection of the Union’s budget in case of generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law in the Member States, and on cultural recovery in Europe. Parliament also debated a Commission statement commemorating the 25th anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide. Members debated statements from the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borell, on stability and security in the Mediterranean and the negative role of Turkey, and on the situation in Belarus. Parliament voted on a number of legislative proposals and resolutions including on the European citizens’ initiative, a resolution on the humanitarian situation in Venezuela, and a chemicals strategy for sustainability.

EU post-coronavirus public health strategy

Members heard statements from the Council and Commission on the post-coronavirus public health strategy, which were followed by a debate on the measures required to reorganise EU assistance for various specific sectors following the pandemic and in light of its expected economic consequences. Parliament adopted, by a large majority (526 votes to 105 and 50 abstentions), a resolution in favour of stronger health cooperation and creation of a European Health Union. In learning lessons from the coronavirus crisis, Parliament underlined the need for common minimum standards and equal access to healthcare. To prepare for possible resurgence of the pandemic, Members called for a European Health Response Mechanism. Parliament also welcomed the newly proposed EU4Health programme.

Cohesion policy role in the coronavirus pandemic recovery

The Commission responded to an oral question on the role of cohesion policy in tackling the socio-economic fallout from Covid-19, agreeing with Parliament that a decision on the legislation regulating cohesion spending and the revised EU budget proposals is urgent.

Road transport: Social and market rules

Parliament adopted at second reading three important files on social and market legislation aimed at ending distortion of competition in the road transport sector and providing better rest conditions for drivers. The ‘Mobility Package’ now becomes law, ensuring better working conditions for freight drivers, fairer competition and measures to tackle illegal practices, as well as clear rules on posting of drivers to ensure equal pay.

Amending Budget No 5/2020: Continuing refugee and host community support

By a large majority (557 votes to 72 and 59 abstentions), Parliament approved draft amending budget (No 5) to the 2020 EU general budget, seeking to extend the humanitarian support currently provided for refugees and host communities in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey as a result of the Syrian crisis. Following this amendment, €485 million will maintain funding of the EU’s humanitarian support in Turkey, and €100 million will be used to fund projects assisting refugees in Jordan and Lebanon through mobilisation of the contingency margin in 2020.

Annual report on the European Investment Bank’s financial activities

Members adopted a resolution based on the Committee on Budgets’ report on the 2019 annual report on the European Investment Bank’s financial activities. The report welcomes the EIB’s reinforced focus on the EU priorities of green investment and supporting small and medium-sized enterprises, but underlines that the bank can still do more in this direction. The report also expresses concern regarding continued exceptions for gas projects, the geographical coverage of EIB lending, the use and control of intermediaries to disburse external lending, as well as transparency towards other EU institutions.

Annual report on control of the EIB’s financial activities

The EIB’s move towards greening the EIB’s investment policy is also a focus of the Budgetary Control (CONT) Committee’s annual report on control of the EIB’s financial activities in 2018. Members adopted a resolution based on the report, which covers the activities of the EIB and the types of transactions and relationships it deals with in detail. The need to ensure funding for climate sensitive projects, and to ensure that ethics, integrity, transparency and accountability are key in all EIB activities was highlighted in the report.

2018 report on protection of the EU’s financial interests – Combating fraud

Members also adopted (421 votes to 167 and 93 abstentions) a resolution the 2018 report on protection of the EU’s financial interests and the fight against fraudulent use of EU funding, where a 25 % fall in the number of irregularities compared to the previous year is counterbalanced by the amounts involved having nevertheless risen by 183 %, necessitating continued vigilance and action by the EU Member States.

Boosting Roma inclusion process in Europe for the next decade

Members also heard and debated a Council and Commission statement on plans to adopt a new EU policy framework to tackle socio-economic exclusion and discrimination against Roma peoples. Parliament has already drawn attention to the need for stronger measures and will be making recommendations for the new EU framework for the equality and inclusion of Europe’s largest ethnic minority.

Annual human rights report 2019

Members held a joint debate on statements by the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell, on the 2019 annual report on human rights and democracy. The report provides an overview of EU actions to promote human rights worldwide, using development instruments, trade conditionality, external policies and diplomacy. The debate is just the first stage in a process under which Parliament will prepare its own report later in the year, providing indications for future measures, in advance of the adoption of a new EU action plan on human rights.

Opening of trilogue negotiations

Members confirmed (without a vote) two Industry, Research and Energy Committee (ITRE) mandates on a European Institute of Innovation and Technology and on the strategic innovation agenda of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology. They also confirmed an International Trade Committee (INTA) decision to open negotiations on Union rights for the application and enforcement of international trade rules, and an Employment & Social Affairs Committee (EMPL) decision on enhanced cooperation between public employment services.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Plenary round-up – Brussels, July 2020‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Maria Niestadt,

© Andy Dean / Adobe Stock

Tourism in the European Union (EU) is one of the sectors hardest hit by the coronavirus crisis, with some parts of the sector and some regions more affected than others. Most tourist facilities were closed during the peak of the crisis, and events cancelled or postponed. Tourism businesses are also among the last to resume activities, and even if they do, they still have to apply strict health protocols and containment measures, meaning that they can operate only at restricted capacity. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development estimates that tourism will decline 60-80 % this year, depending on the length of the health crisis and on the pace of recovery.

While aviation, cruise lines, hotels and restaurants are among the most affected, cycle tourism is becoming more popular during the recovery phase. An increasing number of tourists prefer domestic destinations, areas of natural value, active travel and avoiding overcrowded destinations, at least in the short-term. However, some changes might become permanent, such as the rise in purchasing tourism services online or the greater attention paid to hygiene and healthy living.

At the peak of the pandemic, most EU countries introduced temporary border controls and measures restricting free movement across the EU. However, the strictness and timeline of these measures varied greatly from one country to another. Recently, many EU destinations have started to lift national confinement and quarantine measures, including restrictions on travel. By 15 June 2020, most EU countries had opened their borders to EU travellers and had begun to plan to open borders to travellers from certain third countries as of 1 July 2020.

The EU has acted to support the tourism sector, whether by temporarily changing EU rules, helping to interpret current rules or by providing much-needed financial support. The European Commission helped to repatriate EU travellers. On 13 May 2020, the Commission adopted a comprehensive package of non-legislative measures for the tourism and transport sector, with the aim of helping EU countries to gradually lift travel restrictions and allow tourism and transport businesses to reopen. The Council and the European Parliament have, in general, welcomed the package, while making further suggestions on how to help the sector.

Read this briefing on ‘EU tourism sector during the coronavirus crisis‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Magdalena Pasikowska-Schnass,

The lockdowns, border closures and other restrictive measures in response to the coronavirus pandemic brought tourist and cultural activities to a halt in most EU Member States between mid-March and mid-June, significantly affecting businesses and consumers. A progressive easing of these restrictive measures is now under way.

Lockdown in tourism and culture

© Michele Ursi / Adobe Stock

The coronavirus brought much of the planet to a halt. Activities in the domains of tourism and culture were the first to be suspended, and among the last to resume. Tourism and culture have a high share of SMEs and precarious employment, and are among the sectors worst affected by the consequences of the crisis. They contribute a lot to the gross national product (GNP) of, and employment in, the Member States that were hit hardest by the pandemic. Among them, France, Italy and Spain are home to 16 % of Unesco World Cultural Heritage sites and to a third of EU cultural heritage sites. Sector stakeholders are concerned by the fact that 13 % of the 95 % of world museums that closed due to the coronavirus may never reopen.

Closed from mid-March, most EU internal borders reopened as of mid-June, whereas external borders started to reopen progressively in early July. Both internal and external tourism stopped from one day to the next, as did cultural activities with the closure of all cultural premises. World Heritage sites were closed or partially closed in 90 % of countries across the world in April. By the end of May, only 46 % of them had reopened.

Relationship between tourism and culture

A 2009 OECD publication highlights the mutually beneficial relationship between culture, which attracts tourists, and tourism, which enhances culture and creates income, while also supporting cultural heritage, production and creativity. Cultural tourism has been one of the fastest-growing global markets, and cultural and creative industries, in addition to cultural heritage, its driving force. In order to reap all the benefits of this relationship, partnership between the two sectors is essential. While sustainable tourism, protection and management of cultural assets promote local culture and well-being, badly planned tourism results in overcrowding and deterioration of traditional culture, in crime and increased property prices and taxes.

Moreover, loss of tourism revenue in places of cultural interest results in loss of social security and revenue for artists and cultural professionals. It strongly affects not only heritage sites, but also museums, crafts and cultural sectors which are often involved in seasonal cultural events and festivals.

According to estimates of the UN World Tourism Organization, tourism suffered a loss of US$80 billion in the first quarter of 2020; this has had a negative impact on those working in the cultural sector and on artists’ mobility, due to the cancellation of festivals and to border closures.

Easing of coronavirus-related measures in culture and tourism

According to Unesco, financial investment in the culture subsectors (museums, heritage sites, creative industries) will be strategic for economic recovery, possibly also benefiting tourism. To repair the damage to the creative economy, the World Bank has rapidly provided US$14 billion worth of liquidity to the sector.

Easing lockdown measures, while observing requirements such as keeping a physical distance, wearing a face mask or using a tracing app, across Member States and particularly in tourist regions, is equally challenging for the sectors of tourism and culture. As recommended by the OECD, because these sectors are highly interdependent and face similar difficulties, they could coordinate their efforts or set up joint partnerships to help each other survive and perhaps thrive.

Italy was the first to reopen some of its famous sites, in the last weekend of May, with the Leaning Tower of Pisa admitting only 15 persons at a time, with face masks and an electronic device to warn if the one-metre distance has been violated. Some cities have started using open public spaces for cultural activities, for example, for film projections on building facades (Rome), for cultural festivals and events in the streets and public squares (Seville), or for artists to display their works (Paris).

The International Council of Museums (ICOM) has made recommendations for museums’ reopening, including:

• admitting a limited number of visitor to museums and galleries, and online ticket purchase in advance to manage the flow and ensure contactless entry;
• prohibiting group tours and allocating strict time slots;
• installing floor signs for social distancing;
• organising special sessions for visits by elderly people;
• introducing a one-way system for visits and replacing audio guides with smartphone apps;
• placing protective barriers for exchanges that cannot occur digitally.

Performing Arts Employers’ Associations League Europe has published strategies for reopening theatres and cultural activities in different countries, and provided guidance on risk assessment and prevention.

European Commission proposal for tourism and transport

In its communication of 13 May on tourism and transport in 2020 and beyond, the Commission recognised the correlations between culture and tourism and proposed initiatives, such as technological and financial solutions, to support and potentially revive the two sectors.

The digital cultural heritage platform, Europeana, will further develop its tourism angle; in June it put on display European cultural jewels and hidden gems never before shown. The Cultural gems web app is launching a citizen ambassadors’ campaign to support proximity tourism. Opportunities to discover natural and cultural gems closer to home and taste local products could be even greater in 2021 – the European Year of Rail – when a host of events will be held to promote intra-EU tourism by train.

Joint efforts on the part of the Member States and the Commission to support information-sharing aim to encourage EU citizens to discover the diversity of landscapes, cultures and experiences in the EU. An example of these efforts is the Commission’s European Capitals of Smart Tourism award, initiated by the European Parliament in recognition of EU cities’ outstanding achievements as tourism destinations in four areas, among which cultural heritage and creativity. Another initiative the Commission intends to promote is the European Destinations of Excellence (EDEN), launched in 2006. It enhances the visibility of emerging, non-traditional EU destinations committed to socially, culturally and environmentally sustainable tourism.

Patronage voucher schemes, set up by some Member States to encourage customers to support hotels or restaurants, could be extended to tourism-related aspects of the culture and entertainment sectors. The Commission Re-open EU web portal provides links to such schemes to help customers find all the initiatives and offers in the EU, linking up suppliers with all initiatives and platforms offering such schemes.

On 18 June, the Commission launched a social media campaign – ‘Europe’s culture – close to you: This Summer I visit Europe’ – with a focus on sustainable, local, cultural tourism. The campaign raises Europeans’ awareness of their rich cultural diversity and of the cultural sites in the EU that have been granted the European Heritage Label for their role in European history, and/or the European Heritage Awards/Europa Nostra Awards. The campaign also covers the Council of Europe cultural routes initiative. As part of this initiative, the EU supports the Routes4U project in four EU macro-regions – the Alpine, the Adriatic-Ionian, the Baltic Sea and the Danube – to foster their development through cultural heritage tourism.

European Parliament

A resolution on transport and tourism in 2020 and beyond (2020/2649(RSP)), adopted during the Parliament’s June plenary session, recalled that 68 % of EU tourists choose their holiday destination for its cultural heritage, and that cultural tourism accounts for 40 % of the sector. It highlighted the need to move to more sustainable forms of tourism that respect the environment and cultural heritage. It furthermore called on the Commission to strengthen the financial sustainability of cultural sites funded by the European Regional Development Fund and to allow the development of private-fund schemes to sustain them. The EP urged support for both the culture and the tourism sectors, especially for SMEs and the self-employed. It also urged the introduction of alternative support mechanisms for cultural workers who are heavily dependent on tourism, and for a larger budget for the Discover EU programme in order to boost youth tourism across the EU. It pointed to the fact that safety rules for visitors entail an extra burden on cultural institutions and sites, and to their need for public aid during the recovery period.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Cultural tourism out of confinement‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© Steve / Adobe Stock

As the coronavirus crisis shows no sign of abating globally, many governments around the world face tough choices between easing virus containment measures, in order to allow economic recovery, or keeping these measures in place, to protect their citizens’ health and their healthcare systems from being overwhelmed. They have launched vast financial programmes to support vulnerable households and the newly unemployed, backed banks to keep credit flowing in the economy, and strengthened healthcare systems in anticipation of a possible second wave.

This note offers links to recent commentaries and reports from international think tanks on coronavirus and related issues. Earlier publications on financing the fight against the coronavirus can be found in the previous item in this series, published by EPRS on 6 July.

The financial fragility of European households in the time of Covid-19
Bruegel, July 2020

Conséquences et leçons d’un virus
Institut français des relations internationales, July 2020

Economy must not get stuck between lockdown and recovery
Chatham House, July 2020

EU recovery plans should fund the Covid-19 battles to come; not be used to nurse old wounds
Bruegel, July 2020

Masks off: Chinese coronavirus assistance in Europe
German Marshall Fund, July 2020

Covid could surge anywhere: This tool helps hospitals prepare
Rand Corporation, July 2020

Learning to live in a riskier world
Rand Corporation, July 2020

SURE: From temporary facility to permanent instrument
Centre for European Policy Studies, July 2020

Circulation et commercialisation de chloroquine en Afrique de l’Ouest: Une géopolitique du médicament à la lumière du Covid-19
Institut français des relations internationales, July 2020

Credible emerging market central banks could embrace quantitative easing to fight COVID-19
Bruegel, July 2020

What will the next ‘Great Depression’ look like?
Friends of Europe, July 2020

Health sovereignty: How to build a resilient European response to pandemics
European Council on Foreign Relations, July 2020

Next generation EU: Shock absorber or larger, debt-financed EU budget?
Centre for European Policy Studies, July 2020

BRI and cities: New opportunities of investment after Covid-19
Istituto per gli Studi di Politica Internazionale, July 2020

Lukashenko’s Coronavirus election
German Marshall Fund, July 2020

Contextualizing the United Kingdom’s high Coronavirus mortality rates among Muslims
German Marshall Fund, July 2020

Europe’s good crisis
Centre for European Policy Studies, July 2020

Clearer role for business regulators needed in monitoring trade agreements
Chatham House, July 2020

Covid-19 and the old-new politics of irregular migration from Libya
Wilfried Martens Centre, July 2020

Transatlantic Trends 2020
German Marshall Fund, Bertelsmann Foundation, Institute Montaingne, June 2020

Covid-19, le djihadisme au défi d’une pandémie
Fondation pour la recherche stratégique, June 2020

Together in trauma: Europeans and the world after Covid-19
European Council on Foreign Relations, June 2020

A path to recovery from Covid-19 for small businesses
Rand Corporation, June 2020

Could the Coronavirus pandemic revive international cooperation?
Council on Foreign Relations, June 2020

Resilience in the face of a pandemic: Covid weighs unevenly across racial lines
Brookings Institution, June 2020

Emergency powers, Covid-19 and the new challenge for human rights
Instituto Affari Internazionali, June 2020

Is Covid-19 a game changer for Transatlantic narratives on China?
Chatham House, June 2020

The latest crisis of the European Union: The political, economic, and social consequences of the new coronavirus
Institute for Foreign Affairs and Trade, June 2020

The multilateral order post-Covid: Expert voices
Institute for International and European Affairs, June 2020

Aspects of the cybersecurity ecosystem in the United States: Trends before and during the corona pandemic
Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, June 2020

Quelles initiatives politiques internationales pour la prévention des maladies infectieuses d’origine zoonotique?
IDDRI, June 2020

Covid-19 and the Syrian economy: Implications for social justice
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, June 2020

Health sovereignty: How to build a resilient European response to pandemics
European Council on Foreign Relations, June 2020

Revitalizing resilience is a tough but vital political challenge
Chatham House, June 2020

China’s responsibility for the Covid-19 pandemic: An international law perspective
Finnish Institute of International Affairs, June 2020

Read this briefing on ‘Coronavirus: Tough decisions ahead‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Read all EPRS publications on the coronavirus outbreak

Written by Michael Kaczmarek and Lisa Pschorn,

EYE video recording (WEDFM) – © European Parliament

It is often difficult to find brief and accessible analysis of today’s burning European Union policy issues among the enormous amount of material available. Videos, podcasts and infographics, brief and longer analyses: EPRS colleagues transform their research and analysis into different formats, available on several platforms. To make it easier for you to find the analysis you need, EPRS has compiled topical selections of links to its publications and other online resources on 35 European Union policy areas.

The 35 one-page notes served as background information to questions discussed on Parliament’s European Youth Ideas Hub. A link to each of these Topical Digests is available via the ‘Learn more’ button in each section of the Hub. The whole collection of Topical Digests is also listed below, covering issues ranging from A-Z – from ‘Access to health’, or ‘AI as a force for good’, through ‘Green cities’ or ‘Migration and integration’, to ‘Vaccination’ and ‘Zero-waste life’.

Likewise, EPRS background information served as input for this year’s online edition of the European Youth Event (EYE), which ran from April to May 2020. The event’s 60 live-streamed online activities attracted over 2.2 million views. Several EPRS colleagues participated as speakers or moderators in four of these EYE online sessions, which you can (re)watch here:

– What Europe does for me

– Europe in 2020: 70 years after the Schuman Declaration

– Work in times of crisis and after

– Rural reactions to Covid-19

EPRS Topical Digests to continue the discussion

Below you can find the links to the Topical Digests (left column) that serve as background information to continue the discussion in the corresponding blog section of the European Youth Ideas Hub (right column).

EPRS Topical Digest Related question on the European Youth Ideas blog Access to health Is it a right for all or a privilege for the few? AI as a force for good How do we make sure technology serves the people? Brexit Where do we go from here? Budgeting What does it mean to put your money where your mouth is? Climate Emergency Can we still save ourselves? Dealing with news How do we know what is true in this chaotic mediascape? Digital Addiction Are screens making us sick? E-citizenship How to get heard in 2020? EU-Africa How can we build a mutually beneficial partnership? Europe and the US What is the role for young people? Food of tomorrow How do we ensure zero hunger and a healthy diet for all? Future of Education What’s worth learning in school? Green Cities What should cities of the future look like? Hate speech Are we becoming numb to it? LGBTI rights We’re queer, we’re here and … is equality near? Life fully What is a life well spent? Living with disabilities How can we become more inclusive? Mass surveillance Should we be yearning for some privacy? Millennials and Mental health Are we burning out? Migration and integration What does being European mean in 2020? Modern slavery How do we stop it? Perception of migration How to balance society’s compassion and fear? Populism Is it a dangerous path or an intriguing opportunity? Precarious contracts Is it time to stop saying yes to lousy jobs? Rich-poor divide How do we make sure economic growth is inclusive? Rural renewal How do we get young people to the fields? Safety first Does this mean more or less weapons? Slow Shopping Can we adapt business models to sustainable consumption? Sustainable and reliable energy How to achieve it? Trade and Corruption Do we deal with corrupt countries or not? Understanding cultures How should education contribute to connecting people? Vaccination How do we balance freedom of choice and public welfare? Waste Should we buy less or dispose better? Wonder woman How can we all be equal? Zero-waste life What do we need to achieve it?

Written by Klaus Müller,

This EPRS Briefing relates to the subject of the legislative initiative report currently being prepared by the Employment and Social Affairs Committee (rapporteur: Alex Agius Saliba, S&D, Malta; 2019/2181(INL).

Key aspects

© Adobe Stock

According to Eurofound, the ‘right to disconnect’ refers to a worker’s right to be able to disconnect from work and refrain from engaging in work-related electronic communication, such as emails and other messages, during non-work hours and holidays.

Twenty years ago, it was exceptional (unless in the case of emergency) to contact an employee outside working hours, and even more so during weekends or holidays.

Today, many managers routinely contact employees/colleagues by e-mail or by phone after work, at the weekend and during holidays. In some companies/countries, ‘on call’ is becoming the new norm. Not infrequently, contracts oblige employees to be available after work, at the weekend and during holidays. Being prompt is associated with higher productivity and considered a necessary condition for career advancement; for this reason, some employees consent to taking on the burden of onerous work schedules that invade their private lives.

In 2019, 5.4 % of employed persons in the EU-27 aged 15-64, reported they ‘usually’ worked from home (Eurostat). This share remained constant at around 5 % throughout the 2009-2019 period. However, over the same period, the share of those who ‘sometimes’ worked from home gradually increased, from 6.0 % in 2009 to 9.0 % in 2019. The Netherlands and Finland topped the EU list for remote working, with 14.1 % of employed persons usually working from home in 2019. They were followed by Luxembourg (11.6 %) and Austria (9.9 %). By contrast, the lowest rates of home workers were reported in Bulgaria (0.5 %), Romania (0.8 %), Hungary (1.2 %), Cyprus (1.3 %), Croatia and Greece (both 1.9 %).

In 2020, the coronavirus crisis forced many (private and public) companies and organisations to switch to teleworking, there has been a recent spike in the number of teleworkers. According to the ‘Living, Working and COVID-19’ online survey carried out in April 2020 by Eurofound, 37 % of respondents started working from home during the lockdown. This increase was significantly higher in those countries that already had larger shares of teleworkers (see Figure 1). It is expected that teleworking will become increasingly common in the future.

The widespread increase in telework has positive and negative effects. Telework affords increased productivity, a better work-life balance and greater working-time autonomy. During the coronavirus crisis, teleworking has made it possible to maintain business continuity and employment. However, it can blur the boundaries between people’s professional and private lives.

Read the complete briefing on ‘The right to disconnect‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Zuzana Alexandre, Micaela Del Monte, Gianna Eckert, Silvia Kotanidis, Vendula Langova and Violeta Rakovska (Members’ Research Service and Unit for Legislative Quality, DG Presidency),

© Ivelin Radkov / Adobe Stock

With the virulence of the coronavirus pandemic gradually diminishing, and in the light of the restrictive measures adopted by Member States, attention remains on the way chosen by the various states to respond to the crisis. With states at various stages of relaxing emergency constraints, the effects of the coronavirus pandemic are likely to last in terms of health, economic, social, psychological and possibly even political impact.

Although public attention is now turned towards the widely differing measures that states are taking in order to live with the virus, new challenges are emerging as international and domestic traffic, trade and free movement of people are re-established, having been all but frozen.

In this context, it is still necessary to complete the overview of Member States’ constitutional frameworks in response to the coronavirus pandemic with the hope that this might offer some guidance or insight, should a comparable crisis arise in the future.

This is the last in a series of four briefings and completes the comparative overview of Member States’ institutional responses to the coronavirus crisis by analysing the legislation of Cyprus, Czechia, Greece, Ireland, Lithuania and Slovakia. The first in the series gave an overview of the responses in Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland and Spain, the second covered Austria, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Malta, Romania and Slovenia, while the third covered Croatia, Denmark, Finland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden.

Read the complete briefing on ‘States of emergency in response to the coronavirus crisis: Situation in certain Member States IV‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Clare Ferguson,

© Architectes : Vandenbossche SPRL, CRV S.A., CDG S.P.R.L., Studiegroep D. Bontinck, ©Façade et Hémicycle – Arch M. Boucquillon Belgium – European Union 2019 – Source : EP

The agenda for the July session – the last regular session before the summer, and likely the last in Brussels, with Parliament planning for a return to Strasbourg in September – opens with Council and European Commission statements. The first, with Chancellor Angela Merkel setting out the programme of activities of the German Presidency, will be followed by debate on the outcome of the European Council’s video-conference meeting last month, at which EU leaders held a first discussion on the recovery plans. With the focus remaining firmly on getting Europe back on its feet following the coronavirus outbreak, statements follow on the preparation of the next European Council meeting, where leaders will focus on the economic recovery, aiming to reach agreement on the revised proposal for the EU multiannual financial framework (MFF) for 2021-2027 and the proposed ‘Next Generation EU’ recovery fund.

The transport sector was key to maintaining EU food and medicine supplies during the coronavirus outbreak, and three important files on social and market legislation in the transport industry return to the agenda on Wednesday afternoon. These aim at ensuring better working conditions for freight drivers, whilst at the same time improving road safety by ensuring adherence to common safety standards and fair competition – by tackling the issue of ‘letterbox’ companies, for example. Should Members adopt the three proposals at this second-reading stage, on the basis of texts agreed in trilogue with the Council; the ‘Mobility Package’ measures will finally become law, bringing to an end a long and controversial process.

Measures to reorganise EU assistance for various specific EU sectors following the pandemic and in light of its expected economic consequences are now in preparation, with statements expected from Council and the Commission on Wednesday on the EU post-coronavirus public health strategy. The Commission is also due to respond to an oral question tabled on Friday, on the role of cohesion policy in tackling the socio-economic fallout from Covid‑19. The question intends to clarify exactly how the Commission intends to share cohesion funding between existing priorities and the coronavirus recovery, particularly in the light of the delay in agreeing the legislation on regulating cohesion spending and the revised EU budget proposals. Members have already criticised the proposal to reduce funding for the cultural sector in the next MFF, and Council and Commission statements are expected on the sector’s post-coronavirus recovery on Friday morning.

Good economic governance will be even more important in the difficult years to come, and Members will consider a number of reports on economic matters during this session. On Wednesday evening, Members will vote on the Committee on Budgets’ report on the 2019 annual report on the European Investment Bank’s financial activities. The report welcomes the EIB’s reinforced focus on the EU priorities of green investment and supporting small and medium-sized enterprises, but underlines that the bank can still do more in this direction. The report also expresses concern regarding continued exceptions for gas projects, the geographical coverage of EIB lending, the use and control of intermediaries to disburse external lending, as well as transparency towards other EU institutions. The EIB’s move towards greening the EIB’s investment policy is also a focus of the annual report on control of the EIB’s financial activities in 2018. Members will also discuss the Budgetary Control (CONT) Committee’s report on Wednesday, which looks in greater detail at the activities of the EIB and the types of transactions and relationships it deals with. The need to ensure funding for climate sensitive projects, and to ensure ethics, integrity, transparency and accountability in all EIB activities are key points highlighted in the report.

On Wednesday evening, Members will also vote on a report on the 2018 report on protection of the EU’s financial interests and the fight against fraudulent use of EU funding, which records a 25 % fall in the number of irregularities compared to the previous year. However, Parliament’s CONT committee is concerned that the amounts involved in such fraud have nevertheless risen by 183 % and demonstrate new patterns in fraudulent activity, which necessitate continued vigilance and action by the EU Member States.

Human rights remain a key priority for the Parliament, and on Thursday morning, Members will hold a joint debate on statements by the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell, on the 2019 annual report on human rights and democracy. The report provides an overview of EU actions to promote human rights worldwide, using development instruments, trade conditionality, external policies and diplomacy. The debate is just the first stage in a process under which Parliament will prepare its own report later in the year, providing indications for future measures, in advance of the adoption of a new EU action plan on human rights. Seeking to extend the humanitarian support currently provided for refugees and host communities in response to the Syria crisis in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, Members will also debate two Budgets Committee reports on Thursday afternoon. These propose a draft amending budget (No 5) to the 2020 EU general budget, as well as mobilisation of the contingency margin in 2020. Members will also hear and debate Council and Commission statements on Thursday afternoon regarding another human rights issue, that of the socio-economic exclusion and discrimination against Roma peoples. Parliament has already drawn attention to the need for stronger measures and will be making recommendations for the new EU framework for the equality and inclusion of Europe’s largest ethnic minority.

Written by Alessandro D’Alfonso,

© European Union, 2020

The socio-economic impact of the coronavirus pandemic across the European Union (EU) is posing significant challenges, not least to the good functioning of the single market and the euro area. This has led to a growing consensus on the need for a common recovery plan to complement national stimulus packages. The European Commission has put forward a proposal to establish a €750 billion European recovery instrument, Next Generation EU, to reinforce the EU’s 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework (MFF). The instrument would be financed from funds borrowed on the markets by the Commission on behalf of the EU, while a mix of new and already planned instruments under the EU budget would channel expenditure, combining grants (€500 billion) and loans (€250 billion). The proposal, which aims to focus on the geographical areas and sectors hardest hit by the crisis, seeks to ensure an economic rebound that is also about quality, since expenditure is to be in line with jointly agreed EU objectives such as the green and digital transitions. National allocations under the largest instrument, a new Recovery and Resilience Facility, are to address challenges identified in the context of the European Semester. The recovery instrument includes various proposals in which the European Parliament is involved to varying extents, depending on the issue at stake. The channelling of resources through the EU budget means that Parliament would be co-legislator of relevant spending instruments, and exercise democratic scrutiny of expenditure through the discharge procedure. The budgetary authority would not however determine annual expenditure of Next Generation EU in the budgetary procedure since financing would be based on external assigned revenue. The Commission has called for an agreement to be reached in July 2020, in order for the recovery instrument to be operational as of 2021. A €11.5 billion bridging solution would address some objectives already in 2020. Elements expected to be at the heart of the complex negotiations, which are linked to those on the 2021-2027 MFF, are: the size of the instrument; the mix of grants and loans; the allocation of resources between Member States; reform of the financing system of the EU budget with new own resources; and the repayment of the borrowed resources.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Next Generation EU: A European instrument to counter the impact of the coronavirus pandemic‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Nera Kuljanic with Samuel Gregory-Manning,

© Adobe Stock

Insects, while commonly consumed elsewhere in the world, have long been off the menu in Europe, but they could soon be creeping their way onto our plates. Entomophagy, the practice of eating insects, is now gaining serious interest. Is it set to take Europe by swarm?

Insects are the most diverse group of organisms on the planet and over 1 000 different species are regularly eaten in Africa, Asia, and Central and South America. Nutritionally dense and versatile, insects are already available for human consumption in some EU Member States, either sold whole or in processed products.

With the EU committed to transitioning to a more sustainable and resilient food system as part of the European Green Deal and in light of the Covid‑19 pandemic, insects could offer a greener alternative component of future animal protein production. EU legislation has recently had to catch up with entomophagy’s expansion from a niche novelty to serious commercial and culinary contender, with further legislative authorisation anticipated.

Potential impacts and developments

Insects could make a healthy addition to European diets, generally being a rich source of proteins, fats, minerals (particularly calcium, iron and zinc), and vitamins (including vitamin C and B vitamins). Many insects reportedly taste good and are even considered delicacies in some cultures. Otherwise, insects can be ground or their nutrients extracted and mixed with other foodstuffs, such as grains or meat, to enhance the quality of processed products such as burgers, pasta, cereal bars, and cakes. However, potential risks are associated with the consumption of insects. Some species contain body parts that are difficult to digest, such as cricket spines and legs, and eating inappropriate species or developmental stages could lead to the inadvertent ingestion of toxic substances. Chitin, an abundant biopolymer that makes up the exoskeletons of insects, is a known allergen.

Insects are not yet routinely eaten in most European diets and are subject to strong cultural responses of dislike and disgust, as well as perceptions as a primitive foodstuff. However, the rejection of entomophagy has been shown to be a learned behaviour and overcoming this cultural bias would therefore be feasible for Europeans. Indeed, other arthropods, mostly crustaceans, as well as other invertebrates such as molluscs, are already widely eaten across the continent, with many deemed prized delicacies. Farmed insect species would be herbivorous and thus objectively more hygienic than omnivorous crustaceans, while insects ground and added to other foodstuffs are more likely to be palatable to a wider public, allowing people to overcome food neophobia (fear of unfamiliar foods).

Globally, the most commonly consumed insects are the immature developmental stages of species of beetle, butterflies and moths, and ants, bees and wasps. Elsewhere in the world, mostly wild insects are harvested for consumption, but this would not be feasible in Europe on a large scale due to the lack of an appropriate species in sufficient abundance, as well as a pesticide contamination risk. Insect farming is already practiced in Europe for the production of those used in laboratory research, aquaculture, as pet and zoo feed, and for human consumption. Silk worms and honey bees have also long been reared in Europe for their valued by-products. Representatives of the insect sector estimate that 6 000 tonnes are currently produced annually in Europe, and expect this to grow to between 3 and 5 million tonnes by 2030.

Insect species with life history traits ideal for breeding in Europe for human consumption include native species such as the house cricket Acheta domesticus, Tenebrio molitor beetle larvae (mealworms), and honey bees Apis mellifera; selective breeding could produce domesticated strains with desired traits conducive to large-scale breeding. Nevertheless, breeding would likely have to be highly automated to produce sufficiently large quantities of insects for commercial viability.

The European Green Deal strives for climate-neutrality by 2050, and the Farm to Fork Strategy focuses on the transition to sustainable agriculture as an integral component of this goal, with the latter highlighting the urgency for a more resilient food system in light of the Covid‑19 pandemic. Agriculture is responsible for 10.3 % of EU greenhouse gas emissions, 70 % of which come from animal production, a sector which accounts for 68 % of EU agricultural land use. Meanwhile, EU animal protein demand is expected to grow in the next decade. Although the projected growth in insect production and consumption will not suffice to meet this demand (nor wholly replace traditional meat), it could play a role in the transition to a more sustainable, robust food system.

Naturally occurring in aggregated masses and possessing rapid life-cycles with high fecundity rates, insects could be bred more efficiently than conventional animal livestock, requiring less land, water and energy. Research indicates that they are generally higher in protein content than other traditional sources of protein, such as meat, dairy products, some seeds and soybeans, and that this protein is of high quality. Most insects are more efficient at converting feed to edible body mass: crickets for example require six times less feed than cows, four times less than sheep, and half that needed by pigs and chickens to produce roughly the same amount of protein.

Furthermore, insect species naturally consume organic waste materials, offering the potential for circular production. The majority of insects do not produce methane, and greenhouse gas emissions and ammonia production in their rearing would likely be low. Insects could also be used as feed for other animal livestock, being natural components of the diets of pigs, poultry and fish, potentially reducing EU agricultural dependency on other more environmentally destructive feed materials, such as soya and fish meal.

There are limitations and risks to the mass-farming of insects. Firstly, they are cold-blooded, and would therefore require maintained thermal conditions, particularly in colder climates. Insect species and their various developmental stages are subject to many pathologies and would be vulnerable to infectious diseases that are inherently involved with producing animals in high densities. The risk of novel zoonotic transmission of diseases from insect to human is relatively low, but insects can act as vectors for certain pathogens. Invasive alien species are a main driving force behind biodiversity loss and can cause wider economic damage, and being resilient and with rapid life-cycles, escaped insects could be especially effective invaders.

Anticipatory policy-making

Insects are subject to the EU Novel Food Regulation, which stipulates that food products, that ‘have not been consumed to a significant degree’ in the EU before 1997, must be safe and properly labelled if they are to receive pre-market authorisation. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is set to make a ruling in mid-2020 on the final authorisation of several insects as novel foods, including mealworms, grasshoppers and crickets. Clarification on the legal status of the import and export of insect products will also likely be required. The EU currently protects certain designations used for the marketing of specific foods of animal origin and so clarification on whether such designations can or cannot be applied to insect products may be necessary.

Insect production is also subject to legislation regarding animal health and transmissible diseases: insects may not be reared on certain organic waste and may not be used as feed for certain livestock, but may be used as feed for fish in aquaculture and pets. Given the potential of insects as part of a circular economy due to their ability to convert waste into edible animal protein, this legislation is likely to be reviewed, with the European Commission specifically mentioning insects in its commitment to explore alternative feed sources.

Current legislation protecting animal livestock welfare, pertaining to husbandry, transport and slaughter, does not cover insects. Future EU policy may have to bridge the gap in response to growing production (not least because higher welfare standards confer greater levels of hygiene and quality), with consideration given to the attributes unique to insects. While insects do respond to harmful stimuli, whether they possess the neural capacity to experience pain as perceived by higher animals has yet to be ascertained.

Stringent safeguarding would be needed to mitigate risks of accidental escape of potentially invasive and alien species. The EU currently recognises one species of non-European insect, the Asian hornet, as invasive, alongside three other species that are native to one part of the Union, but alien and potentially invasive in others. These species should not be used in any insect production and the list should be regularly updated to account for novel invasive threats.

Read this ‘At a glance’ on ‘What if insects were on the menu in Europe?‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to Science and Technology podcast ‘What if insects were on the menu in Europe?’ on YouTube.

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© Corona Borealis / Adobe Stock

European Union leaders and institutions are now discussing plans to provide a major boost to the European economy to help it recover from the coronavirus crisis. They are doing so in the context of the new long-term EU budget, which would see the total ‘own resources’ ceiling for the Union more or less doubled. On 19 June 2020, the members of the European Council exchanged views digitally on the European Commission’s linked proposals, tabled on 27 May, for (i) a new ‘Next Generation EU’ recovery fund, and (ii) an updated Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for the next seven-year financing period, from 2021 to 2027, in which the recovery fund would be embedded. The European Council will discuss these proposals again (in person) on 17-18 July in Brussels. In this context, think tankers and policy analysts have been debating the proposals and assessing their potential effectiveness.

This note offers links to recent commentaries and reports from international think tanks on coronavirus and related issues. Earlier publications on financing the fight against the coronavirus can be found in the previous item in this series, published by EPRS on 8 June.

How to spend it: A proposal for a European Covid-19 recovery programme
Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, July 2020

An opportunity to improve the MFF permanently
European Policy Centre, June 2020

Un budget de relance ambitieux, mais de dures négociations à prévoir
Jacques Delors Centre, June 2020

How to spend it right: A more democratic governance for the EU Recovery and Resilience Facility
Hertie School – Jacques Delors Centre, Bertelsmann Stiftung, June 2020

The EU’s recovery fund proposals: Crisis relief with massive redistribution
Bruegel, June 2020

An ambitious recovery budget, tough negotiations ahead
Notre Europe, June 2020

Le cadre financier pluriannuel 2021/2027: Être le phare
Fondation Robert Schuman, June 2020

Three-quarters of Next Generation EU payments will have to wait until 2023
Bruegel, June 2020

Les banques européennes à l’épreuve de la crise du Covid-19
Centre d’études Prospectives et d’informations Internationales, June 2020

Italian economic recovery plan
Polish Institute of International Affairs, June 2020

Financing the 2030 agenda for sustainable development: Prerequisites and opportunities for the post-Covid-19 crisis
Institut du Développement durable et des Relations Internationales, June 2020

Next generation EU bonds might face a credit-rating challenge
Central for European Policy Studies, June 2020

The US and Europe have addressed Covid unemployment in divergent ways: The differences are revealing
Atlantic Council, June 2020

The ground-breaking novelties of the Franco-German proposal and the misuse of the abacus
Luiss School of European Political Economy, May 2020

The role of greater cohesion funding for solidarity and sustainability post-Covid-19
Institute for European Environmental Policy, May 2020

Options for a European Recovery Fund
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, May 2020

The European Union’s SURE plan to safeguard employment: A small step forward
Bruegel, May 2020

How Germany’s Constitutional Court jump-started the Franco-German engine
Council on Foreign Relations, May 2020

The EU recovery fund is a historic step, almost
Centre for European Reform, May 2020

Whatever it takes, for as long as is needed: Mapping a new European recovery programme
Wilfried Martens Centre, May 2020

When the Franco-German ‘couple’ starts making sense again
Instituto Affari Intrnazionali, May 2020

Rebooting Europe: A framework for a post Covid-19 economic recovery
Bruegel, May 2020

The recovery fund: Legal issues
Luiss School of European Political Economy, May 2020

Governing in times of social distancing: The effects of Covid-19 on EU decision-making
European Policy Centre, April 2020

Beyond coronabonds: A new constituent for Europe
Instituto Affari Internazionali, April 2020

Will Covid-19 reduce the resistance to Eurobonds?
Centre for European Policy Studies, April 2020

A proposal for a coronabond: The Pandemic Solidarity Instrument
Centre for European Reform, April 2020

Protecting employment in the time of coronavirus
Centre for European Policy Studies, April 2020

Europe’s debate on fiscal policy: Too much yet too little
Centre for European Policy Studies, April 20

A European approach to fund the coronavirus cost is in the interest of all
Bruegel, April 202

Comment le budget de l’UE peut-il contribuer à résoudre la crise du coronavirus?
Jacques Delors Institute, March 2020

Towards a new MFF: New priorities and their impact on Italy
Centre for European Policy Studies, February 2020.

Read this briefing on ‘The EU budget and coronavirus‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Read all EPRS publications on the coronavirus outbreak

Written by Nera Kuljanic with Sara Suna Lipp,

© metamorworks / Adobe Stock

Artificial intelligence (AI) is likely to impact the future of almost every industry and all our lives. This is why it is highly important to keep Members of the European Parliament informed about the latest developments, as well as the challenges and long-term impacts of this technology. To support Members in their work, STOA (the Parliament’s Panel for the Future of Science and Technology) continuously monitors the newest developments and it has produced 20 publications and hosted several events in the last two years on themes related to AI and its applications. Before delving into specific areas of AI applications, the latest STOA study on AI provides an accessible and extensive overview of developments in AI techniques, explaining how they work, the associated impacts and regulatory measures.

AI is one of today’s hottest topics and, due to its strategic value, is ranked very high on the EU agenda. The number of files on AI in progress at the European Parliament only illustrates the amount of activities expected in this area for the coming year. While AI and its applications open up great opportunities, many related risks and ethical concerns are subject to intense discussions at many levels.

AI and (public) health

AI technologies are transforming the fields of public health, biomedical research and medicine. The coronavirus crisis is an example of how AI applications can provide an immediate response to the pandemic. A recent STOA publication investigates ten technologies to fight coronavirus, including AI applications to tackle Covid‑19 and provide potential tools for fighting future infectious outbreaks. AI applications are used to help track the spread of the disease in real-time, predict new clusters, search drug databases and even analyse CT scans. Furthermore, AI is widely used in biomedical research and medicine. Long a focus of AI development, AI diagnosis and treatment of diseases were discussed in a STOA workshop organised in February 2019, and in a recently published ‘at a glance’ on AI and dementia.

AI and disinformation

The rise of disinformation in the digital age poses serious threats to society, democracy and business; the EU therefore pays special attention to tackling disinformation by acting at the European level. Two sequentially published STOA studies assess AI and its applications related to disinformation. One study examines how algorithms are used to detect, contain and counter online disinformation. The study provides policy options emphasising the need to support research and innovation, a multi-stakeholder approach, to improve the transparency and accountability of online content, and raise standards in media and journalism. The other study covers the trade-offs of using AI algorithms to prevent disinformation. The different policy options presented underline the interactions between technological solutions, freedom of speech and media pluralism.

AI opportunities, challenges and ethics

While AI already benefits our daily lives on many levels, including more effective healthcare, transportation and decision-making systems, it also poses legal, social, economic and ethical challenges. Furthermore, public opinion, hopes and fears are even more important in the discussion about future AI applications. Our in-depth analysis ‘Should we fear AI?‘ presents varying perspectives on this issue in a collection of opinion papers based on a workshop STOA organised in October 2017. Furthermore, the use of AI in media was the theme of the STOA Annual Lecture 2017, which investigated the challenges and the opportunities that arise with the use of algorithms in systems that create, manage and distribute information.

Transparency, explainability and responsibility; privacy, data protection and informed consent; misuse; military applications and security are some of the issues that are discussed in more detail in our publications:

• The impact of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) on artificial intelligence
• Artificial intelligence: From ethics to policy
• The ethics of artificial intelligence: Issues and initiatives
• A governance framework for algorithmic accountability and transparency
• Understanding algorithmic decision-making: Opportunities and challenges
• Technology and social polarisation
• How artificial intelligence works
• Why artificial intelligence matters
• Artificial Intelligence ante portas: Legal & ethical reflections

In addition, past STOA events have addressed topics such as ethical and legal frameworks, governance challenges, and the European approach to AI. Also, check out our two-pagers on thought-provoking future scenarios: How could AI change employment? What if AI-enabled face recognition was used to monitor emotions? Can algorithms obey ethical rules? And what if technologies had their own ethical rules? You can also explore more detail and watch short videos on AI on our website.

Follow us on Twitter to stay in touch and for information about our newest publications and upcoming events!

Written by Cemal Karakas,

© enotmaks / Adobe Stock

The public sector is an important employer, service provider and procurer. Innovations in the public sector mainly focus on processes, products, organisation and communication. Citizens and businesses alike benefit from a professional and modern public administration in terms of better governance, faster service delivery, co-creation and co-design of politics.

There is no overall European Union law that targets public sector innovation per se. The European Commission, however, provides guidelines on public sector innovation. Many of these guidelines aim to tackle challenges deriving from digital transformation, increased mobility and cross-border interoperability.

In 2013, an expert group appointed by the Commission encouraged the EU and its Member States to overcome innovation barriers in the public sector by, for instance, improving the management and ownership of innovation processes, empowering innovation actors, and providing standards for innovation. In this context, the EU has been implementing its innovation union policy, promoting best practices and co-financing the establishment and activities of the Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). While today many of the expert group’s recommendations have been implemented – such as innovation labs and networks, policy labs, innovation scoreboards or toolboxes – some, however, remain unaccomplished.

The European Parliament has demonstrated a positive stance towards innovation in the public sector on several occasions, including encouraging the Commission to speed up the realisation of the digital single market. More recently, Parliament adopted resolutions on the Commission’s EU e‑government action plan and on the proposed new digital Europe programme.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Public sector innovation: Concepts, trends and best practices‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘Public sector innovation: Concepts, trends and best practices’ on YouTube.

Written by Nikolina Šajn,

© Worawut / Adobe Stock

European consumers enjoy a high level of rights, but when the rules protecting them are broken, they need to be enforced. The main goals of enforcement are to prevent and punish infringements, and to enable consumers harmed by infringements to get wrongs put right (consumer redress).

In the 2019 consumer conditions scoreboard poll, one in five consumers said that they had encountered problems when buying a product or service in the previous 12 months. However, whereas two thirds of them had complained – and were generally happy with the outcome, the other third decided not to do anything because they expected complaining to require too much time and effort, with an uncertain result.

When it comes to faulty products, individual consumers can demand redress directly from sellers, and if this is unsuccessful, they can sue them in court. However, individual lawsuits are highly problematic, as, for instance, the costs often exceed the value of the claim. The EU therefore requires Member States to ensure that consumers have access to alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, while the Commission runs an online dispute resolution platform. Consumers can also collectively seek injunctions to stop or ban infringements, and the EU institutions are also working on enabling consumer organisations to demand compensation in court.

Consumer protection rules are also enforced by national public authorities, including through implementation of some EU-level enforcement rules. The Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation harmonises the powers of national competent authorities and lays down rules on their cooperation with counterparts in other Member States, while the EU has moved to harmonise maximum fines for widespread infringements of consumer protection rules.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Enforcement of consumer protection legislation‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘Enforcement of consumer protection legislation’ on YouTube.

Written by Mihalis Kritikos,

© Shutterstock

The development and deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) tools should take place in a socio-technical framework where individual interests and the social good are preserved but also opportunities for social knowledge and better governance are enhanced without leading to the extremes of ‘surveillance capitalism’ and ‘surveillance state’. This was one of the main conclusions of the study ‘The impact of the General Data Protection Regulation on Artificial Intelligence‘, which was carried out by Professor Giovanni Sartor and Dr Francesca Lagioia of the European University Institute of Florence at the request of the STOA Panel, following a proposal from Eva Kaili (S&D, Greece), STOA Chair.

Data protection is at the forefront of the relationship between AI and the law, as many AI applications involve the massive processing of personal data, including the targeting and personalised treatment of individuals on the basis of such data. This explains why data protection has been the area of the law that has most engaged with AI and, despite the fact that AI is not explicitly mentioned in the General Data Protection Regulation (GPDR), many provisions of the GDPR are not only relevant to AI, but are also challenged by the new ways of processing personal data that are enabled by AI. This new STOA study addresses the relation between the GDPR and AI and analyses how EU data protection rules will apply in this technological domain and thus impact both its development and deployment.

After introducing some basic concepts of AI, the study reviews the state of the art in AI technologies with a focus on the application of AI to personal data. It then provides an in-depth analysis of how AI is regulated in the context of the GDPR and examines the extent to which AI is captured by the GDPR conceptual framework. It discusses the tensions and proximities between AI and data protection principles, such as purpose limitation and data minimisation, examines the main legal bases for AI applications to personal data, and reviews data subjects’ rights, such as the rights to access, erasure, portability and object. Researchers and policy-makers will find the meticulous analysis of the provisions of the GDPR to determine the extent to which their application is challenged by AI, as well as the extent to which they may influence the development of AI applications, of great theoretical and practical value.

The study carries out a thorough analysis of automated decision-making, considering the extent to which it is admissible, the safeguard measures to be adopted, and whether data subjects have a right to individual explanations. It then considers the extent to which the GDPR provides for a preventive risk-based approach, focused on data protection by design and by default. In adopting an interdisciplinary perspective, the study identifies all major tensions between the traditional data protection principles — purpose limitation, data minimisation, special treatment of ‘sensitive data’, limitations on automated decisions — and the full deployment of the power of AI and big data. The vague and open-ended GDPR prescriptions are analysed in detail regarding the development of AI and big data applications. The analysis sheds light on the limited guidance offered by the GDPR on how to balance competing interests, which aggravates the uncertainties associated with the novel and complex character of new and emerging AI applications. As a result of this limited guidance, controllers are expected to manage risks amidst significant uncertainties about the requirements for compliance and under the threat of heavy sanctions.

It should be noted that one of the main study findings is that, despite several legal uncertainties, the GDPR generally provides meaningful indications for data protection in the context of AI applications, that it can be interpreted and applied in such a way that it does not substantially hinder the application of AI to personal data, and that it does not place EU companies at a disadvantage by comparison with non-European competitors.

The study then proposes a wide range of concrete and applicable policy options about how to reconcile AI-based innovation with individual rights and social values and ensure the adoption of data protection rules and principles. Some of the proposed options relate to the need for a responsible and risk-oriented approach that will be enabled by the provision of detailed guidance on how AI can be applied to personal data in a way that is consistent with the main principles and general provisions of the GDPR. This guidance can be provided by national data protection authorities, and the Data Protection Board in particular, and should also involve civil society, representative bodies and specialised agencies.

The study emphasises the need to distinguish between use of personal data in a training set, for the purpose of learning general correlations and their use for individual profiling, as well as on the need to introduce an obligation of reasonableness for controllers engaged in profiling. The authors’ proposal concerning the facilitation of the exercise of the right to opt out of profiling and data transfers along with the right of collective enforcement in the data protection domain is of practical importance.

The study’s added value lies not only in the detailed legal analysis and realistic policy options it puts forward but also in its engagement with the general discussion about the values of the GDPR and the need to embed trust in AI applications via societal debates and dialogue with all stakeholders, including controllers, processors and civil society. This societal engagement would be necessary to develop appropriate responses, based on shared values and effective technologies. The arguments and findings of the study offer both theoretical insight and practical suggestions for action that policy-makers will find stimulating and worth pursuing.

Read the full report and accompanying STOA Options Brief to find out more. You can also watch the video of the presentation of interim findings to the STOA Panel.