European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

Written by Anja Radjenovic,

© M-SUR / Shutterstock.com

The unprecedented arrival of refugees and irregular migrants in the EU in 2015 exposed a number of deficiencies in EU external border, asylum and migration policy, sparking EU action through various legal and policy instruments. While the EU has been relatively successful in securing external borders, curbing irregular migrant arrivals and increasing cooperation with third countries, Member States are still reluctant to show solidarity and do more to share responsibility for asylum-seekers.

International cooperation and solidarity is key in helping to manage migration to and between states. Under international law, countries have certain legal obligations to assist and protect refugees that they accept on their territory, but the legal duties of other states to help and share that responsibility are less clear.

At EU level, the principle of solidarity is set out in Article 80 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), however there is currently no consensus on whether it can be used as a stand-alone or joint legal basis for secondary legislation. Furthermore, the notions of ‘solidarity’ and ‘fair sharing of responsibilities’ for refugees or asylum-seekers are not defined in EU law. This has prompted EU institutions, academics and other stakeholders to propose different ways to resolve the issue, such as sharing out relevant tasks and pooling resources at EU level, compensating frontline Member States financially and through other contributions – such as flexible solidarity – and changing the focus of the European Court of Justice when interpreting EU asylum law.

In recent years, the EU has provided the Member States most affected by migrant arrivals with significant financial and practical support, notably through the EU budget and the deployment of personnel and equipment. Nevertheless, the continued failure to reform the EU asylum system, as well as the implementation of temporary solidarity measures based on ad-hoc solutions, has exposed a crisis of solidarity that shows no signs of being resolved. The von der Leyen Commission has made it clear that the new EU asylum system ‘should include finding new forms of solidarity and should ensure that all Member States make meaningful contributions to support those countries under the most pressure’.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Solidarity in EU asylum policy‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Clare Ferguson,

© Lightspring / Shutterstock.com

Spreading swiftly from the initial November 2019 outbreak in China to pandemic proportions in just a few short months, COVID-19 has led to a need for stringent emergency public health measures to save lives across the world. Organising and providing healthcare in the European Union (EU) is a Member State prerogative and responsibility. However within the limits of its powers, the EU has nevertheless acted quickly to help limit the spread of the virus, ensure medical equipment is available, boost the search for a vaccine and aid Member States to withstand the social and economic impact.

Priorities

Heads of State or Government of the 27 EU Member States underlined the need for solidarity in the EU approach to the coronavirus pandemic during their first videoconference to discuss COVID‑19 on 10 March. Four priorities for action were established and reaffirmed at a 17 March meeting:

• Limiting the spread of the virus, including assessing the risk and closing external borders so that internal borders can remain open, allowing the single market to function.
• Ensuring the provision of medical equipment by ramping up production of medical devices, issuing calls for production of medical equipment, and negotiating new supplies.
• Helping researchers to find a vaccine quickly, through existing research funding.
• Aiding EU Member States to weather the social and economic impact of the pandemic.

EU-level action

The European Commission immediately set up a coronavirus response team to coordinate a common European response to the outbreak of COVID-19 and to provide objective information. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control is providing rapid risk assessments and epidemiological updates on the outbreak. The EU Health Security Committee has been reinforced and meets to discuss travel issues and medical countermeasures such as equipment and laboratory and diagnostic capacity in the EU. On 17 March 2020, an advisory panel on COVID-19 was launched to formulate guidelines on risk management.

Limiting the spread of the virus: A 16 March Commission communication aims to coordinate temporary restrictions by Member States on non-essential travel to the EU, although citizens and residents of Member States must be allowed to return home. Under Commission guidelines for border management measures to protect health and ensure the availability of goods and essential services, Member States may also temporarily reinstate internal borders should this be necessary for public health or internal security. The measures seek to maintain the balance between slowing transmission of the virus while ensuring necessary medical and vital supplies circulate in the single market. On 18 March, the Commission published recommendations for community measures to limit contagion and on testing strategies.

Medical equipment: Ensuring countries can quickly obtain the medical equipment they need, an initial EU budget of €50 million (€40 million of which is subject to the approval of the budgetary authorities), will be available from 20 March 2020. All Member States will have access to the first ever rescEU stockpile of medical equipment, such as ventilators and protective masks, under the EU Civil Protection Mechanism.

The existing EU Cross-border Health Threat Decision provides for joint procurement of medical countermeasures to ensure access to fairly priced and distributed medical supplies. A voluntary Joint Procurement Agreement allows 26 participating Member States to make joint purchases, such as equipment, vaccines and antivirals. In response to the current outbreak, these measures enabled a 28 February call for tender for personal protective equipment (evaluation under way), and a 17 March tender for ventilators, both of which should be concluded in April 2020.

On 15 March, the Commission moved to protect the availability of supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE), with an emergency implementing act requiring that exports of such equipment outside the EU are subject to export authorisation by Member States.

Boosting research: In support of European and global research efforts, the Commission announced €47.5 million in Horizon 2020 programme funding for 17 shortlisted research projects to advance understanding of COVID-19, improve clinical management of infected patients and public health preparedness. A further call for proposals is under way for therapeutics and diagnostics to tackle current and future coronavirus outbreaks, worth €45 million, under the Innovative Medicines Initiative.

Alleviating the socio-economic impact: The pandemic is a major, albeit temporary, shock to the global and European economy. A 13 March Commission communication on a coordinated economic response to the COVID-19 outbreak sets out the need for a common approach to tackle the economic fall-out from the disruption caused by the disease. To help national governments support their economies, the Commission has approved a Temporary Framework allowing them to derogate from State aid rules until at least December 2020. It also considers the conditions to activate the general escape clause on fiscal rules under the Stability and Growth Pact to have been met, and asks the Council to endorse this measure. The Commission has made three urgent legislative proposals on funding and relief measures in response to the outbreak (see ‘European Parliament’ below).

Other possibilities to mitigate the economic impact include funding from the €179 million that remains available under the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund to support workers who lose their jobs. To help farmers, the Commission allows Member States to extend the application deadline for common agricultural policy payments to 15 June 2020.

It is also to be expected that the effects of COVID-19 will be taken into account when the time comes for negotiations to recommence on the multiannual financial framework for 2021-2027.

Support to the financial system

As of 19 March, the European Central Bank has committed to providing a €750 billion Pandemic Emergency Purchase Programme to relieve government debt during the crisis, as well as €120 billion in quantitative easing measures and €20 billion in debt purchases. Mobilising a further €500 billion from the European Stability Mechanism, as proposed by some, could result in a total financial intervention of close to €2 trillion.

European Parliament

Parliament discussed the novel coronavirus outbreak during its plenary session on 10 March. Members praised the efforts of health workers fighting the virus, and reiterated the need for solidarity between countries, EU production of medical equipment and funding for research for a vaccine.

As the virus also impacts Parliament’s functioning, an extraordinary plenary session on 26 March, in Brussels, will formally replace the session planned for 1-2 April. President David Sassoli indicated that Parliament ‘must remain open, because a virus cannot bring down democracy’. With most Members unable to travel, specific measures will be instituted for this session to ensure that they can vote remotely. Members are expected to vote on the three urgent legislative proposals aimed at tackling the effects of the pandemic:

• To make a further €37 billion available to Member States from the Cohesion Funds to address the consequences of the crisis, the Commission proposes a Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative. Parliament may amend or adopt the proposal, which reallocates funding available under the current EU budget, but as yet unused (2020/0043(COD)).
• The EU Solidarity Fund supports Member States and accession countries hit by major natural disasters. The Commission proposes to extend its scope to allow financial assistance for those seriously affected by COVID-19, as the outbreak constitutes a major public health emergency, where EU-level intervention is justified. This must first be agreed by Parliament before countries can request assistance from the Fund. The aim is to speed disbursement, and raise advance payments to 25 % of the expected EUSF contribution (limited to €100 million) (2020/0044(COD)).
• Parliament is also expected to scrutinise a proposal aiming to end unnecessary emissions and help the aviation industry adjust their capacity in view of the fall in demand for flights. The Commission proposes to temporarily suspend rules obliging airlines to use their slots at EU airports from 13 March 2020 (2020/0044(COD)).

Read this ‘At a glance’ on ‘European Union response to coronavirus threat‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Ralf Drachenberg and Annastiina Papunen,

© Shutterstock

‘The EU is facing a serious and exceptional crisis, in terms of magnitude and nature’. This was the main message from the President of the European Council, Charles Michel, after EU leaders held a three-hour-long video-conference to discuss the COVID-19 outbreak. The EU Heads of State or Government followed up on the four lines of action to contain the spread of the disease agreed at their video-meeting on 10 March, and discussed in more depth the EU’s external and internal border management. Charles Michel stressed that the absolute priority for the EU was to mobilise its efforts to protect the health of EU citizens and tackle the crisis, including the economic and social consequences. EU leaders will be discussing developments regularly via video-conference.

Video-conference of EU Heads of State or Government on17 March

On 17 March, the members of the European Council held a video-conference on the measures taken to fight the COVID-19 outbreak. European leaders underlined the need for a coordinated approach, as individual Member States have unilaterally introduced a variety of measures, including the reintroduction of border checks and, in some cases, the closure of borders with other Member States.

This meeting was the second video-conference on the COVID-19 outbreak held by the members of the European Council within a week, following the first on 10 March. At that meeting, the following four priorities were identified: 1) limiting the spread of the virus; 2) providing medical equipment; 3) promoting research, including the development of a vaccine; and 4) tackling the socio-economic consequences of the outbreak. Other participants in the discussion on 17 March were the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Central Bank, Christine Lagarde, the President of the Eurogroup, Mário Centeno, and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the European Commission (HR/VP), Josep Borrell. The President of the European Parliament, David Sassoli, was not invited to be heard by the EU Heads of State or Government at the opening of the video-conference meeting in accordance with Article 235(2) TFEU, as the meeting was considered to be an informal one.

Conclusions by the President of the European Council

Similarly, as a video-conference is not technically a formal meeting, the conclusions were those of the President of the European Council and not, as they would normally be, the conclusions of the European Council. The Heads of State or Government followed up on the four previously identified priorities, and raised a fifth issue, which is help for EU citizens stranded in third countries.

1. Limiting the spread of the virus

Following the three-hour video call, the President of the European Council, Charles Michel, reported that the aim was to slow down and push back the threat of the virus. Therefore, EU leaders discussed internal and external aspects of EU border management.

Concerning the EU’s internal borders, over the previous week, many Member States had already temporarily reintroduced border controls to stop the spread of the Coronavirus (COVID-19). Some were able to use border controls previously introduced for other reasons to the same effect (see Table 1).

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

Country Period Official reason Borders Austria 11-21 March 2020

 

14-24 March 2020 COVID-19 Land border with Italy

Land borders with Switzerland and Liechtenstein Czechia 14 March – 4 April 2020 COVID-19 Land borders with Austria and Germany, air borders

Denmark

12 November 2019 – 12 May 2020

Terrorist threats, organised criminality from Sweden

All internal borders

Estonia 17-27 March 2020 COVID-19 Land borders with Latvia, air borders, sea borders France 31 October 2019 –
30 April 2020 Persistent terrorist threat, upcoming high profile political event in Paris, secondary movements

All internal borders

Germany

16-26 March 2020

 

12 November 2019 – 12 May 2020

COVID-19

 

Secondary movements, situation at the external borders

Land borders with Denmark, Luxembourg, France, Switzerland and Austria

Land border with Austria

Hungary

12-22 March 2020

COVID-19

Land borders with Austria and Slovenia

Lithuania

14-24 March 2020

COVID-19

All internal borders

Poland

15-24 March 2020

COVID-19

Land borders with Czechia, Slovakia, Germany, Lithuania, sea borders, air borders

Sweden

12 November 2019 – 12 May 2020

Terrorist threats, shortcomings at the external borders

To be determined but may concern all internal borders

Source: EPRS based on information from the European Commission.

The Schengen Borders Code specifies the conditions under which Member States can introduce temporary checks at their internal borders (see EPRS Temporary border controls in the Schengen area). A Member State can reintroduce exceptional border controls at all or specific parts of its internal borders if there is a serious threat to public policy or internal security, but must notify the Commission and the other Member States immediately, providing information about the reasons, scope and duration of the measures.

Given that one consequence of the border closures and renewed border controls was that many people were stranded in the European Union and were having problems getting home, Ursula von der Leyen stressed that it was ‘absolutely essential to unblock the situation’. EU leaders agreed on the need to ‘ensure the passage of medicines, food and goods’ and to enable citizens to travel to their home countries. Adequate solutions for cross-border workers would also have to be found.

Regarding the external dimension, EU Heads of State or Government endorsed the guidelines proposed by the Commission on border management and agreed to ‘reinforce the external borders by applying a coordinated temporary restriction of non-essential travel to the EU for a period of 30 days’. At its meeting on 13 March 2020, the Justice and Home Affairs Council noted that decisions taken at Member States’ borders were national decisions, and the competence of the respective Member State. Consequently, all the European Council could do was offer political support to proposed measures by endorsing them. President von der Leyen stressed that it was now up to the Member States to implement those measures.

Main messages from the European Parliament President:

In a video statement released following the European Council meeting, the President of the European Parliament, David Sassoli, stated that ‘Europe is correcting the selfishness and lack of coordination between national governments in the face of the COVID-19 crisis’. He added that ‘finally, we are showing a real sense of solidarity: preferential lanes for the passage of medical equipment, defending the free movement of goods in the EU, and the first important economic support for our families and businesses’. He stressed that Parliament was ‘ready to do its part to protect the lives and livelihoods of all our people. We will not give up living as Europeans’.

2. Providing medical equipment

EU leaders ‘welcomed the decision taken by the Commission to adopt a prior authorisation for export of medical equipment’. On 14 March, the European Commission published an implementing regulation to this effect, which prohibits all exports of personal protective equipment, notably without an export authorisation. EU Heads of State or Government also backed the Commission’s efforts to engage with industry, run joint public procurements to provide sufficient protective equipment, and to purchase protective equipment through the civil protection framework.

3. Promoting research

EU leaders welcomed the efforts being made to support research, including the Advisory Group on COVID-19. They underlined that developing a vaccine and offering it to all those in need was very important, and that research information should be shared to fight the virus. European companies had an essential role to play in this work, and the EU leaders said that they would support them in their efforts. In response to the previous week’s controversy over the issue of vaccines following press reports that the Trump administration had tried to secure exclusive access to a vaccine currently being developed by the German company CureVac, on 16 March, the Commission offered the company up to €80 million in funding to help with the vaccine’s development and production.

4. Tackling socio-economic consequences

Given the speed at which the situation is evolving, it is currently hard to predict precisely the socio-economic consequences of COVID-19; a number of countries are in lockdown and many companies have had to limit their operations or even halt them completely. Moreover, it is not yet known how long it will take for the situation to get back to normal. The Heads of State or Government endorsed the Eurogroup statement of 16 March and asked finance ministers to keep monitoring the situation, while taking appropriate action without delay. EU leaders also voiced support for the measures the Commission had already taken to counter the economic impact of the coronavirus, such as adapting the State aid rules to the ongoing situation and using the flexibility offered by the stability and growth pact.

The Eurogroup held a video-conference meeting on 16 March in an inclusive format (with all EU Member States) to discuss the challenges to EU economies posed by COVID-19. In its statement, the Eurogroup welcomed the measures already taken by the Member States and the Commission, and agreed on the need for ‘an immediate, ambitious and coordinated policy response’. The EU finance ministers put together a set of national and European measures, and decided on fiscal measures amounting to about 1 % of GDP and committed to liquidity facilities of at least 10 % of GDP.

On 13 March, the European Commission set out a coordinated response at EU level, envisaging: more flexible application of EU State aid rules to allow EU Member States to take measures to support businesses facing economic difficulties; the use of specific clauses in the stability and growth pact to allow for exceptional expenditures; the redirection of €1 billion from the EU budget as a guarantee for the European Investment Fund to incentivise banks to provide businesses with liquidity; and action to alleviate the impact on employment, in particular by accelerating the procedure on the proposal for the European unemployment reinsurance scheme. The Commission also announced that it would release €37 billion in liquidity under the Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative, an increase from the initial planned envelope (€25 billion). On 18 March, EU ambassadors agreed the Council’s position on two legislative proposals in this respect. The next step will be for Parliament to finalise its position.

5. Helping citizens stranded in third countries

In addition to the previously agreed four lines of action to contain the spread of the disease, EU leaders discussed ways of helping citizens stranded in third countries. They undertook to coordinate action between the EU’s and Member States’ diplomatic networks in third countries so as to ensure the orderly repatriation of EU citizens. They agreed that the Union civil protection mechanism, first activated in the context of the COVID-19 crisis on 28 January 2020 at the request of France, was key in enabling the swift repatriation of EU citizens. Civil protection had already been discussed by the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 13 March, with specific emphasis on:

• lessons learned thus far in tackling the COVID-19 outbreak;
• possible additional preparedness and response measures for the EU civil protection mechanism;
• increased information-sharing, using the integrated political crisis response (IPCR) toolbox; and,
• additional support from Member States.

The HR/VP, Josep Borrell, and the European External Action Service (EEAS) would support these coordination efforts. Following the meeting, the HR/VP announced that the EEAS would help Member States to coordinate consular assistance for the repatriation of thousands of EU citizens currently in third countries and wishing to return home. He also stressed that the forthcoming Foreign Affairs Council on 23 March in video-conference format would consider the geopolitical implications of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Next steps

The EU Heads of State or Government agreed that the Member States and institutions would follow up on the decisions made at all levels immediately. They agreed to revisit the measures being taken in the fight against the COVID-19 outbreak at another video-conference the following week. The regular European Council meeting scheduled for 26-27 March would be postponed until a later date.

Read this briefing on ‘Outcome of the video-conference call of EU Heads of State or Government on 17 March 2020‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Ariane Dyser,

On 13 March 2020, the European Commission adopted a legislative proposal to amend Regulation 95/93 on common rules for the allocation of slots at EU airports. The proposal responds to the rapid spread of cases of Covid-19, caused by a novel coronavirus, that has led to a substantial drop in the number of flights and forward bookings. It seeks to support airlines by temporarily suspending slot usage rules.

Background

© Tanathip Rattanatum / Shutterstock.com

Under current rules, airport slots are allocated by independent coordinators, for summer or winter scheduling seasons. To keep their slots and retain them in the next corresponding season, air carriers are compelled to use them at least 80 % of the time over the scheduling period for which they have been allocated (a convention known variously as ‘historical slots’, ‘grandfather rights’ or the ’80-20 rule’). Otherwise, the slots go back into the slot pool for allocation, with the slots which are under-used by air carriers then reallocated (known as the ‘use it or lose it’ rule).

The spread of Covid-19 around the world has already had severe implications for the air transport sector. The European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) indicated there was a 10 % decrease in the number of flights for the first two weeks of March 2020 compared to 2019, and European airports predict a loss of 67 million passengers in the first quarter of 2020. Moreover, according to the International Air Transport Association International (IATA), air carriers were reporting large falls in forward bookings. The putting in place of travel restrictions, notably the coordinated temporary restriction of non-essential travel to the EU for a period of 30 days, in order to contain the spread of the virus globally, has meant the numbers of flights being operated has fallen dramatically.

As slots are an essential economic resource for airlines, air carriers may initially have been inclined to operate flights with very low load factors (or ‘ghost flights’), to protect their ‘grandfather rights’, thus increasing financial losses and the adverse impact on the environment. Hence, the importance of temporarily neutralising the ‘use it or lose it’ rule, to mitigate the impact of the crisis and provide legal certainty to air carriers. Temporary suspensions have been used in the past: in 2002 following the 9/11 terrorist attacks; in 2003, following the Iraq war and the SARS epidemic, and in 2009 in response to the economic crisis.

European Commission proposal and next steps

The objective of the legislative proposal adopted by the Commission is to suspend the ‘use it or lose it’ rule for slot allocation. The main provision of the proposal is that coordinators would consider slots allocated for the period from 1 March 2020 until 30 June 2020 as having been operated by the air carrier to which they had initially been allocated. In other words, the non-utilisation of slots allocated for this period should not cause air carriers to lose the historic precedence they would otherwise enjoy. The same approach would apply to slots used for flights between the EU and the People’s Republic of China or between the EU and Hong Kong, for the additional period from 23 January 2020 until 29 February 2020. The proposal would empower the Commission to extend the period during which the measures would apply, by way of delegated acts, for which an urgent procedure would be used.

The proposal, which will have retroactive impact, needs now to be adopted urgently by the European Parliament and the Council of the EU.

Defined in the initial 1993 Regulation (amended several times) as ‘the scheduled time of arrival or departure available or allocated to an aircraft movement on a specific date at an airport coordinated under the terms of this Regulation’, an airport ‘slot’ means permission to use runways and terminals to operate a flight to or from a congested airport on a specific date and at a specific time.

Read this ‘At a glance’ on ‘Suspension of EU rules on airport slot allocation‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

David SASSOLI, EP President, meets with a Vietnamese delegation © European Union 2020 – Source : EP

The President of the European Parliament sometimes receives large numbers of identical messages on a given topic. The Citizens’ Enquiries Unit (AskEP) is asked to reply to these campaign messages. Replies to campaigns are also published on the EPRS blog.

The President of the European Parliament has received a large number of messages on the import and transport of wildlife into Vietnam.

You can find below, in English and Dutch, the reply sent to citizens who wrote to the President of the European Parliament on this matter.

Reply in English

On 12 February 2020, the European Parliament adopted a non-legislative resolution on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

MEPs in the resolution welcome the provisions for cooperation on animal welfare, including technical assistance and capacity-building for the development of high animal welfare standards, and encourages the Parties to make full use of them’.

MEPs further ‘urge the Parties to develop an action plan for cooperation on animal welfare as soon as possible, including a programme for training, capacity-building and assistance in the framework of the agreement, with a view to safeguarding animal welfare at the time of killing and better protecting animals on farms and during transport in Vietnam’.

More information is available in the European Parliament press release on the EU-Vietnam free trade and investment protection deals.

Concerning cats and dogs specifically, the European Parliament also adopted a resolution on protecting the EU’s internal market and consumer rights against the negative implications of the illegal trade in companion animals on 12 February 2020. In the resolution, Members highlight ‘that Member States should ensure that staff at borders are adequately trained in the procedures and rules that apply to the importation of companion animals from listed and unlisted third countries and that they are enforcing these rules’.

More widely, you may find information of interest to you via the Delegation of the European Union to Vietnam.

Reply in Dutch

Op 12 februari 2020 heeft het Europees Parlement een niet-wetgevingsresolutie aangenomen over het ontwerp van besluit van de Raad betreffende de sluiting van de vrijhandelsovereenkomst tussen de Europese Unie en de Socialistische Republiek Vietnam.

In deze resolutie stelt het Parlement dat het “ingenomen [is] met de bepalingen inzake samenwerking op het gebied van dierenwelzijn, met inbegrip van technische bijstand en capaciteitsopbouw voor de ontwikkeling van hoge dierenwelzijnsnormen, en de partijen [verzoekt] deze ten volle te benutten.”

Het Parlement dringt er voorts bij de partijen op aan “zo snel mogelijk een actieplan voor samenwerking op het gebied van dierenwelzijn te ontwikkelen, met inbegrip van een programma voor opleiding, capaciteitsopbouw en bijstand in het kader van de overeenkomst om het dierenwelzijn te waarborgen op het moment van het doden en dieren beter te beschermen op landbouwbedrijven en tijdens transport in Vietnam.”

Meer informatie is te vinden in het persbericht van het Europees Parlement over de vrijhandels- en investeringsbeschermingsovereenkomst tussen de EU en Vietnam.

Ten aanzien van katten en honden heeft het Europees Parlement op 12 februari 2020 ook een resolutie aangenomen over het beschermen van de interne markt van de EU en van de rechten van consumenten tegen de negatieve gevolgen van de illegale handel in gezelschapsdieren. In deze resolutie benadrukt het Parlement “dat de lidstaten ervoor moeten zorgen dat het personeel bij grensovergangen voldoende geschoold is in de procedures en voorschriften voor de invoer van gezelschapsdieren uit derde landen die al dan niet op de lijst staan van landen waaruit invoer is toegestaan, en dat het deze voorschriften ook daadwerkelijk handhaaft.”

De Delegatie van de Europese Unie in Vietnam kan ook een interessante bron zijn voor verdere informatie.

Transport of piglets by road.

The President of the European Parliament sometimes receives large numbers of identical messages on a given topic. The Citizens’ Enquiries Unit (AskEP) is asked to reply to these campaign messages. Replies to campaigns are also published on the EPRS blog.

The President of the European Parliament has received a large number of messages calling for a Europe-wide moratorium on the use of animals in scientific research.

The reply sent to citizens who wrote to the President of the European Parliament on this matter is given below in English and French.

Reply in English

We would inform you that the EU rules on this issue are laid down in Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. The directive is based on the principle of replacement, reduction and refinement of the use of animals in procedures (also known as the ‘Three Rs’ principle).

We would also inform you that during the eighth Parliamentary term (2014‑2019) on 3 May 2018, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on a global ban to end animal testing for cosmetics, in which Members reiterated ‘that animal testing can no longer be justified for cosmetics and asks EU and national public authorities to uphold the public’s opposition to cosmetics testing and support the advancement of innovative, humane testing methods’.

Further to the ban on animal testing for cosmetic purposes Members have tabled questions to the Commission – among others – on animal testing and clarifications on REACH and the Cosmetics Regulation, to which the Commission reply stated that ‘The promotion of alternative methods to animal testing is one of the main objectives of the REACH Regulation’.

On 3 March 2015, a European Citizens’ Initiative ‘Stop Vivisection‘ was submitted to the European Commission, the goal of which was ‘ to abrogate Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes and put forward a new proposal aimed at phasing out the practice of animal experimentation, making compulsory the use – in biomedical and toxicological research – of data directly relevant for the human species’.

The initiative was discussed during a public hearing hosted by the European Parliament on 11 May 2015, to provide a platform for debate for Members, the general public, the European Citizens’ Initiative supporters and experts in the field.

In its communication setting out its actions in response to the initiative, the Commission welcomed the mobilisation of citizens in support of animal welfare and stated that the EU shares the initiative’s conviction that animal testing should be phased out, which is also the main aim of EU legislation.

Numerous petitions have been submitted to the European Parliament on the issue of animal testing and vivisection. Information regarding the right of petition to the European Parliament, including details on the procedures for submitting and supporting a petition and the conditions of admissibility (competence, form, presentation), or inadmissibility thereof, is available on the Petitions Web Portal.

Further information on animal testing is available in the summary of EU legislation on the protection of laboratory animals and the Commission’s webpage on ‘animals used for scientific purposes‘, which also provides details of EU action to identify alternative approaches.

The following websites and publications may also be of interest.

EU Reference Laboratory for alternatives to animal testing (EURL CVAM), the science and knowledge service of the European Commission.

The EURL ECVAM status report on the development, validation and regulatory acceptance of alternative methods and approaches.

European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing, a voluntary collaboration between the European Commission, European trade associations, and companies from eight industry sectors ‘committed to pooling knowledge and resources to accelerate the development, validation and acceptance of alternative approaches to animal testing’.

Alternatives to animal testing, the European Food Safety Authority website.

Reply in French

Nous vous informons que la question de l’expérimentation animale est réglementée au niveau de l’Union par la Directive 2010/63/UE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 22 septembre 2010 relative à la protection des animaux utilisés à des fins scientifiques. La directive s’appuie sur l’application des principes dits de remplacement, de réduction et de raffinement (ou «règle des trois R») de l’utilisation d’animaux dans le cadre de ces procédures.

Nous vous informons également qu’au cours de la huitième législature (2014‑2019), le 3 mai 2018, le Parlement européen a adopté une résolution sur l’interdiction totale de l’expérimentation animale pour les cosmétiques, dans laquelle il «réaffirme que l’expérimentation animale ne peut plus être justifiée pour les cosmétiques et demande à l’Union et aux pouvoirs publics nationaux de soutenir l’opposition des citoyens à l’expérimentation animale pour les cosmétiques et le développement de méthodes d’expérimentation novatrices et humaines».

Dans le droit fil de l’interdiction de l’expérimentation animale dans le domaine des produits cosmétiques, plusieurs députés ont adressé des questions à la Commission concernant, entre autres, l’expérimentation animale et des éclaircissements sur REACH et le règlement sur les produits cosmétiques, ce à quoi la Commission a répondu en déclarant que «la promotion de méthodes alternatives à l’expérimentation animale est l’un des principaux objectifs du règlement REACH».

Le 3 mars 2015, une initiative citoyenne européenne intitulée Stop Vivisection a été présentée à la Commission, en vue de demander à cette dernière «d’abroger la Directive 2010/63/UE relative à la protection des animaux utilisés à des fins scientifiques et de présenter à la place une nouvelle proposition de directive visant à mettre fin à l’expérimentation animale et de rendre obligatoire, pour la recherche biomédicale et toxicologique, l’utilisation de données pertinentes pour l’espèce humaine».

L’initiative a été examinée lors d’une audition publique, organisée par le Parlement européen le 11 mai 2015, pour permettre aux députés, au grand public, aux signataires de l’initiative citoyenne européenne et aux experts du domaine d’échanger sur ces questions.

Dans sa communication exposant ce qu’elle compte faire pour répondre à l’initiative, la Commission salue la mobilisation des citoyens en faveur du bien-être des animaux et déclare que l’Union européenne partage la conviction qui est celle de l’initiative citoyenne, à savoir que les essais sur les animaux devraient être progressivement supprimés, ce qui est aussi la finalité ultime de la législation européenne dans ce domaine.

Un grand nombre de pétitions ont été présentées au Parlement européen sur la question de l’expérimentation animale et de la vivisection. Les informations concernant le droit de pétition auprès du Parlement européen, y compris des précisions sur les procédures à suivre pour présenter et soutenir une pétition et sur les conditions de recevabilité (compétence, forme, présentation), sont disponibles sur le portail des pétitions du Parlement européen.

Davantage d’informations sont disponibles dans la synthèse publiée sur EUR-Lex concernant la protection des animaux de laboratoire ainsi que sur la page web que la Commission consacre aux animaux utilisés à des fins scientifiques, qui précise également les mesures prises par l’Union pour recenser les méthodes de substitution à l’expérimentation animale.

Les sites et publications suivants pourraient également vous intéresser.

Laboratoire de référence de l’Union pour les méthodes de substitution à l’expérimentation animale (EURL CVAM), le service de la Commission européenne pour la science et la connaissance.

Le rapport de l’EURL EVCAM sur la mise au point, la validation et l’acceptation réglementaire de méthodes et techniques de substitution.

Le partenariat européen visant à promouvoir les méthodes de substitution à l’expérimentation animale, une collaboration volontaire entre la Commission européenne, des associations professionnelles européennes et des entreprises de huit secteurs industriels «qui se sont engagées à mettre en commun leurs connaissances et leurs ressources pour accélérer le développement, la validation et l’acceptation de méthodes de substitution à l’expérimentation animale».

Alternatives à l’expérimentation animale, le site web de l’Autorité européenne de sécurité des aliments (EFSA).”

Written by Clare Ferguson,

© European Union 2020 – Source : EP

As the coronavirus crisis develops, and the European Union and its Member States take ever-more stringent action, the European Parliamentary Research Service is continuing to publish papers on the various aspects of the crisis and response to it.

The swift spread of a novel coronavirus from an initial outbreak in Wuhan, China in November 2019 to pandemic proportions in just a few short months, has led to a need for emergency public health measures to save lives across the world. In the European Union (EU), healthcare organisation and provision are Member State prerogatives and responsibilities, with the EU having limited scope to act. However, referring to World Health Organization guidelines, the European Union has stepped in to play a coordinating role, complementing national policies to help countries face the common challenge.

Following a special meeting by videoconference of the Heads of State or Government of the 27 EU Member States, also attended (virtually) by the European Commission, European Central Bank and Eurogroup Presidents, as well as the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the European Commission, four priorities were agreed. Welcoming the proposals to act decisively to help national governments face the challenges posed by the spread of the virus, European Parliament President David Sassoli commented that ‘Parliament is ready to do its part to protect the lives and livelihoods of all our people. We will not give up living as Europeans.’ A second videoconference took place on 17 March, at which the leaders reaffirmed the need to act on the four areas. The regular European Council meeting planned for 26 March has now been postponed, with a further videoconference on the coronavirus response taking its place. As of 19 March, the ECB has committed to providing €750 billion to relieve government debt during the crisis, as well as €120 billion in quantitative easing measures and €20 billion in debt purchases.

The four priority areas in the EU’s response to the COVID-19 outbreak are:

1. Limiting the spread of the virus, including assessing the risk and closing external borders so that internal borders can remain open to allow the single market to function.
2. Ensuring the provision of medical equipment by ramping up production of medical devices, issuing calls for production of medical equipment, and negotiating new supplies.
3. Helping researchers to find a vaccine quickly, through existing research programmes
4. Aiding EU Member States to weather the social and economic impact of the pandemic.

At the same time, EU citizens need to be able to trust the information they receive on such a vital issue. Support has been strengthened for the Health Security Committee to provide aligned information throughout the EU on the virus. While an ‘infodemic’ of manipulated information has accompanied the the COVID-19 outbreak, the EU continues with its efforts to tackle such harmful disinformation.

EPRS publications on the topic include:

• What can the EU do to alleviate the impact of the coronavirus crisis?
• Economic impact of epidemics and pandemics
• Temporary border controls in the Schengen area
• What if we could fight coronavirus with artificial intelligence?
• Addressing health inequalities in the European Union: Concepts, action, state of play
• Treatment optimisation in drug development

• What Think Tanks are thinking: Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• What Think Tanks are thinking: Coronavirus: The latest

• ESMH Press Review, special edition on coronavirus
• Misinformation in science: How false medical news on social media miseducates our society
• How to spot when news is fake
• European Science Media Hub interviews
• European Science Media Hub articles

Written by Mar Negreiro,

© 3DDock / Shutterstock.com

Sales in the EU still predominantly take place offline – in bricks and mortar shops – and purchases are still predominantly made with cash. However, thanks to the level of convenience they offer, both online shopping and cashless electronic payments are booming and are among the key drivers of the digital transformation taking place in our economy and society. The real-time accessibility of e commerce products and their availability 24 hours a day, together with the ease of making electronic payments, are disrupting many aspects of traditional consumer shopping behaviour, which is also increasingly driven by widespread use of mobile devices and apps.

Online sales hit a record high in 2019. At the international level, China is leading in both e-commerce transactions and mobile cashless payments. However, the coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis has put countries across the world, starting with China, into extraordinary conditions, with citizens staying at home; and some sellers trying to extract the highest profit possible from the situation.

In the EU, a large majority of internet users, particularly those under the age of 45, shop online. Clothes, sports goods, travel and online content such as games, videos and music are among the most popular items.

This trend is also driven by the increase in cashless payments, which have become very popular in some countries. The numerous different cashless payment methods in existence are often highly localised. One such example, the e-wallet, is gaining particular importance, driven by the over 2 billion users it enjoyed in 2019.

On the other hand, e-commerce and the cashless society are facing a host of challenges related to cybercrime, fraud, privacy, the digital divide and pollution, among others. The coronavirus outbreak is also posing various challenges to e-commerce supply chains, many of which are based in the hardest-hit countries. However, the opportunities that e-commerce and cashless transactions afford in terms of convenience, efficiency and affordability will help them gain further ground in the years to come; their popularity among younger generations and strong EU-level policy support for digital transformation are also helping boost their prospects.

Read the complete briefing on ‘The rise of e-commerce and the cashless society‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Marcin Szczepański,

© Alfa Photo / Shutterstock.com

The digitalisation of the economy and society poses new tax policy challenges. One of the main questions is how to correctly capture value and tax businesses characterised by a reliance on intangible assets, no or insignificant physical presence in the tax jurisdictions where commercial activities are carried out (scale without mass), and a considerable user role in value creation. Current tax rules are struggling to cope with the emerging realities of these new economic models.

The European Union (EU) and other international bodies have been discussing these issues for some time. In March 2018, the EU introduced a ‘fair taxation of the digital economy’ package. It contained proposals for an interim and long-term digital tax. The European Parliament supported both proposals, widening their scope and coverage and backing integration of digital tax into the proposed Council framework on corporate taxation. However, there was no immediate political agreement in the Council. As finding a global solution at Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) level or a coordinated EU approach was not yet feasible, some Member States started implementing or designing national digital taxes. As an indication of difficulties around this issue, the introduction of these taxes in France heightened trade tensions between the EU and the United States of America, with the latter favouring a ‘voluntary’ tax system – a position which may prevent a global agreement.

Over the last few years, the OECD has nevertheless made progress on developing a global solution and proposed a two-pillar system: while the first pillar (unified approach) would grant new taxation rights and review the current profit allocation and business location-taxation rules, the second (GloBE) aims to mitigate risks stemming from the practices of profit-shifting to jurisdictions where they can be subjected to no, or very low, taxation. The EU is committed to supporting the OECD’s work, but if no solution is found by the end of 2020, it will again make a proposal for its own digital tax.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Digital taxation: State of play and way forward‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© MintArt / Shutterstock

The world is currently facing the fastest-spreading pandemic since the Spanish flu (in the aftermath of the First World War), prompting governments to take unprecedented decisions to contain this highly contagious coronavirus, which leads to COVID-19 infection. The measures taken include closing borders in some countries, encouraging telework as much as possible, and shutting schools, universities, restaurants and many other facilities, except for shops selling groceries, supermarkets and pharmacies. People are urged to stay at home and avoid physical contact with others. In a growing number of countries, confinement is being enforced.

This note offers links to recent commentaries and reports from international think tanks on the coronavirus and related issues. Earlier publications on the topic can be found in the previous item in the series, published on 11 March.

Coronavirus: Global response urgently needed
Chatham House, March 2020

How leaders can stop corona from undermining the EU
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, March 2020

Bold policies needed to counter the coronavirus recession
Centre for European Reform, March 2020

‘Whatever it takes’ must be EU member states’ Covid-19 pledge
Friends of Europe, March 2020

COVID-19 is a reminder that interconnectivity is unavoidable
Brookings Institution, March 2020

Trade policy and the fight against coronavirus
European Centre for International Political Economy, March 2020

Corona Crisis: Italy needs European solidarity – now
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, March 2020

Coronavirus: All citizens need an income support
Chatham House, March 2020

The economic policy response to COVID-19: What comes next?
Brookings Institution, March 2020

Tracking Coronavirus in countries with and without travel bans
Council on Foreign Relation, March 2020

Trump’s trade policy is hampering the US fight against COVID-19
Peterson Institute for International Economics, March 2020

The Coronavirus can make or break the Union
European Policy Centre, March 2020

Coronavirus has shattered many long-held myths about globalisation
Friends of Europe, March 2020

Europe braces for Coronavirus spread
Bertelsmann Stiftung, March 2020

Responding to the coronavirus outbreak
Clingendael, March 2020

An effective economic response to the Coronavirus in Europe
Bruegel, March 2020

The coronavirus recession deepens financial market turmoil
Atlantic Council, March 2020

Estimates of COVID-19’s fatality rate might change: And then change again
Rand Corporation, March 2020

What you need to know about the Coronavirus outbreak
Council on Foreign Relation, March 2020

Addressing the coronavirus ‘infodemic’
Atlantic Council, March 2020

Designing an effective US policy response to Coronavirus
Peterson Institute for International Economics, March 2020

What the Coronavirus emergency means for the US-Iran conflict
Atlantic Council, March 2020

International cooperation for the Coronavirus combat: Results, lessons, and way ahead
Shanghai Institutes for International Studies, March 2020

Coronavirus: The view from Italy, China, Singapore, India, and the UK
Council on Foreign Relation, March 2020

Responding to the coronavirus outbreak
Clingendael, March 2020

Global macroeconomics of coronavirus
Brookings Institution, March 2020

Covid-19 & OPEC+ collapse: Preliminary assessment of implications for energy markets, policies and geopolitical balances
Institut français des relations internationales, March 2020

The Coronavirus outbreak could disrupt the U.S. drug supply
Council on Foreign Relations, March 2020

Coronavirus, campaigns, and connectivity
Brookings Institution, March 2020

Covid-19 & OPEC+ collapse: Preliminary assessment of implications for energy markets, policies and geopolitical balances
Institut français des relations internationales, March 2020

The World Health Organization
Council on Foreign Relation, March 2020

Le coronavirus, une géopolitique des peurs
Institut Montaigne, March 2020

COVID-19 is a reminder that interconnectivity is unavoidable
Brookings Institution, March 2020

How Europe should manage the Coronavirus-induced crisis
Centre for European Policy Studies, March 2020

Uncharted territory: Italy’s response to the coronavirus
European Council on Foreign Relations, March 2020

Three macroeconomic issues and Covid-19
Bruegel, March 2020

Only the coronavirus can convince Trump of the virtues of international cooperation
Bruegel, March 2020

An effective economic response to the Coronavirus in Europe
Bruegel, March 2020

What if the rest of Europe follows Italy’s coronavirus fate?
Bruegel, March 2020

Three macroeconomic issues and Covid-19
Bruegel, March 2020

Ill will: Populism and the coronavirus
European Council on Foreign Relation, March 2020

Coronavirus forces colleges online: Will learning ever be the same?
Rand Corporation, March 2020

Coronavirus and the labor market
Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry, March 2020

Coronavirus outbreak intensifies: Q&A with RAND experts
Rand Corporation, March 2020

The consequences of the Coronavirus epidemic for the EU economy
Polish Institute for International Affairs, March 2020

Will China learn from the COVID-19 epidemic?
East Asia Forum, March 2020

Coronavirus, telemedicine, and dustbusters
Rand Corporation, March 2020

How Europe should manage the Coronavirus-induced crisis
Centre for European Policy Studies, March 2020

Pour une Europe de la santé. Chronique d’une épidémie, crise sanitaire, perturbant fortement l’économie
Fondation Robert Schuman, March 2020

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

Written by Nicole Scholz, Angelos Delivorias and Marianna Pari,

© Lightspring / Shutterstock.com

The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak has now been declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization. Alleviating the human effects of the crisis is paramount, but repercussions are being felt across many sectors. European Union institutions are unanimous in calling for solidarity among Member States, and for Europe to offer support, within its remit, to its Member States in their response to the common challenge.

On 10 March 2020, Heads of State or Government of the EU countries held a videoconference on COVID-19, to discuss how to coordinate the EU-level response. EU leaders stressed the need for a joint European approach and close coordination with the European Commission. Priorities were identified, to be followed up on ‘at all levels immediately’. The measures that are – or could be – envisaged range across different policy areas. As an immediate response, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen formed a coronavirus response team. Further measures were announced in a European coronavirus response on 13 March 2020.

Planned – and potential – health and preparedness measures include reinforcing the EU’s role in joint procurement, bolstering cooperation in disease management and control, and potentially widening the remit of the European reference networks. Greater controls on people crossing external EU borders are also proposed. Monetary, budgetary and macroeconomic measures include, for instance, those taken to ease the impact of the coronavirus emergency on the aviation industry. Moreover, the EU and the Member States, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund can also take steps to help people and firms. The EU budget has been mobilised to provide funds to reinforce preparedness and containment measures, as well as research into the virus. Furthermore, cross-border health threats, such as that posed by COVID‑19, could be taken into account when shaping the multiannual financial framework for 2021-2027.

Read the complete briefing on ‘What can the EU do to alleviate the impact of the coronavirus crisis?‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Costica Dumbrava,

© M-SUR/shutterstock

Free movement across internal borders is one of the EU’s most important achievements, with important benefits for EU citizens. The Schengen Borders Code (or Schengen Code) specifies the conditions under which Member States can introduce temporary checks at their internal borders in cases of serious threats to public policy or internal security. The Code was revised in 2017 in order to strengthen the EU’s external borders and to help cope with unprecedented migratory pressure and cross-border security threats. A Commission legislative proposal to further update the Schengen Code in order to tighten up the rules on temporary border controls is currently with the co-legislators. The recent coronavirus outbreak has pushed several Member States to reintroduce border controls at some of the EU’s internal borders in an attempt to contain the spread of the virus.

The Schengen Code

The Schengen Code lays down the common rules governing the management of internal and external EU borders, including rules and procedures concerning the exceptional introduction of border checks at internal borders. There are currently three cases in which Member States can introduce temporary border checks at their internal borders on grounds of a serious threat to public policy or internal security: (1) in the case of a foreseeable threat (e.g. a special event such as a sporting competition); (2) in the case of an immediate threat; and (3) in the situation of persistent serious deficiencies relating to external borders.

Foreseeable threat to public policy or internal security

According to Article 25 of the Schengen Code, a Member State can reintroduce exceptional border controls at all or specific parts of its internal borders if there is a serious threat to public policy or internal security. Any such measures should be exceptional, temporary and proportionate. If the serious threat to public policy or internal security in the Member State concerned persists, the period can be prolonged by renewable periods of 30 days, up to a maximum six months. The Member State concerned must notify the Commission and the other Member States at least four weeks before taking action, unless the circumstances giving rise to the measures arise within a shorter timeframe. The notification must specify the reasons, scope and duration of the measures. The information must also be submitted to the European Parliament and the Council. The Commission is supposed to issue an opinion after consulting the other Member States.

Immediate threat to public policy or internal security

Under Article 28 of the Code, a Member State can introduce immediate border controls at internal borders if there is a serious threat to public policy or internal security. This measure must be exceptional and is to be limited to up to ten days. If the serious threat to public policy or internal security persists, the period may be prolonged by renewable periods of 20 days, up to maximum of two months. The Member State concerned must notify the Commission and the other Member States immediately, providing information about the reasons, scope and duration of the measures. The Commission must inform the European Parliament immediately and, after consulting the other Member States, should issue an opinion.

Persistent serious deficiencies relating to external border control

Under Article 29 of the Code, a Member State may introduce temporary border checks at internal borders when there are persistent serious deficiencies in the external border management of a Member State, as demonstrated during a Schengen evaluation. This period could be prolonged up to three times if the exceptional circumstances persist, up to a limit of maximum two years. Acting on a proposal from the Commission, the Council can issue a recommendation for one or more Member States to reintroduce border controls at all or specific parts of their borders. The Member State(s) concerned must then notify the other Member States, the European Parliament and the Commission before reintroducing border controls, or inform the Commission in writing of their reasons for not implementing the Council’s recommendation. The Commission must present the European Parliament and the Council with a report on the functioning of the area without internal border controls at least once a year. This report must include a list of all decisions taken to reintroduce border controls at internal borders during the relevant year.

Cases of border checks reinstated at internal borders

The unprecedented inflow of migrants and asylum-seekers that peaked in 2015 put great strain on the EU’s external borders, leading a number of Members States to reintroduce controls along some of their borders with other Member States. While justified by the need to cope with an exceptional situation, these measures have disrupted the functioning of the Schengen area, generating significant economic, social and political costs. According to an EPRS study from 2016, the economic cost for a two-year suspension of Schengen by all participating states would range from €25 billion to €50 billion, while indefinite suspension of Schengen would cost between €100 billion and €230 billion over 10 years.  Currently there are six Schengen Member States that have temporarily reintroduced border controls along parts of their borders with other Member States in connection with foreseeable threats to public policy or internal security (mainly terrorism threats, secondary movements by irregular migrants and special events).

Following the outbreak of the coronavirus (COVID-19), a number of Member States have adopted exceptional measures aimed at containing the spreadof the virus, including measures to reintroduce border checks or close their borders with other Member States. To prevent disruption of the supply of essential goods and medical staff in the EU, the European Commission has adopted an export authorisation scheme for protective equipment and has presented Member States with guidelines on border measures.

Current cases of internal border controls (for foreseeable events)
Norway (12 November 2019 – 12 May 2020)
Sweden (12 November 2019 – 12 May 2020)
Denmark (12 November 2019 – 12 May 2020)
Germany (12 November 2019 – 12 May 2020)
Austria (12 November 2019 – 12 May 2020)
France (31 October 2019 – 30 April 2020) Revision of the Schengen Code

The Schengen Code was revised in 2017 in the context of measures to strengthen external borders to allow for mandatory systematic checks on all people crossing the EU’s external borders, including the verification of biometric information in the relevant databases.

In September 2017, the Commission presented a proposal for a regulation to amend the rules applicable to the temporary reintroduction of checks at internal borders, aiming to adapt the maximum periods for these measures in order to enable Member States to respond adequately to serious threats to public policy or internal security. The proposal also introduces further procedural safeguards (e.g. an obligation to conduct ‘assessments’) to ensure that the use of internal border checks remains exceptional and proportionate, thus encouraging Member States to use police checks and cooperation instead of internal border controls.

European Parliament position

The European Parliament has constantly reiterated its commitment to safeguarding the Schengen area. In its resolution of 30 May 2018 on the annual report on the functioning of the Schengen area, it condemned ‘the continued reintroduction of internal border checks as this undermines the basic principles of the Schengen area’, and called for the establishment of substantial procedural safeguards, in particular to maintain a strict time limit on the reintroduction of checks at internal borders.

In its legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation amending the rules applicable to the temporary reintroduction of border control, adopted in April 2019, Parliament reiterated that the Schengen area is one of the Union’s main achievements and stressed the need for a common response to situations seriously affecting the public policy or internal security of the Schengen area. Parliament maintained that the temporary reintroduction of border controls at internal borders should occur only in exceptional circumstances and as a last resort. While it agreed with the Commission that in the event of a long-term threat there should be a possibility to prolong internal border controls beyond six months, on an exceptional basis, the European Parliament maintained that the prolongation must not lead to a further extension of temporary border controls beyond one year (the Commission proposed a two-year maximum). Having adopted its position at first reading, Parliament is now waiting for Council to set out its position.

Read this ‘At a glance’ on ‘Temporary border controls in the Schengen area‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Izabela Cristina Bacian,

© Shutterstock

Given the unprecedented circumstances surrounding the COVID-19 outbreak and the potential EU-wide ramifications, Heads of State or Government of the 27 EU Member States welcomed the initiative to hold a special meeting by video-conference on 10 March 2020. European Council President Charles Michel expressed his sympathy for all those citizens affected by the disease and, in particular, for Italy, the country most affected so far. The Member States discussed the COVID-19 outbreak and agreed on four lines of action to contain the spread of the disease. The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Central Bank, Christine Lagarde, the President of the Eurogroup, Mario Centeno, and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the European Commission, Josep Borrell, also took part in the discussion.

The format of the meeting was exceptional in several aspects. It is noteworthy that, for the first time, a video-conference call, bringing all EU Heads of State or Government together, as well as many representatives from other institutions, was organised in such a formal manner. The meeting was followed by a regular press conference, and resulted in the President of the European Council releasing its conclusions. Given the very productive outcome of the meeting, it is possible that such a format could be used more frequently in the future.

Following the discussion, EU leaders identified four priorities: 1) Limiting the spread of the virus; 2) Provision of medical equipment; 3) Promotion of research; and 4) Tackling the socio-economic consequences. Member States agreed that all measures taken should be based on science and be proportionate, and that all relevant information would be shared through existing coordination mechanisms. It will be essential that medical equipment be made available, and the European Commission will pursue joint public procurement, prioritising protective equipment and respiratory devices. Member States called for more research, including towards the development of a vaccine. The Commission has already mobilised €140 million of public and private funding for research on vaccines, diagnosis and treatment. Moreover, it will assemble a team of epidemiologists and virologists from different Member States to agree guidelines to apply at European level.

The Heads of State or Government agreed to act in a coordinated manner to address the socio-economic impact of the virus outbreak on specific affected sectors and employees, in particular, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). In this context, a flexible application of EU rules on state aid and the Stability and Growth Pact would be needed. The Commission will propose concrete measures before the Eurogroup meeting on 16 March 2020. Lastly, the Commission will bring forward a Corona Response Investment Initiative to support health systems, SMEs, the labour market and other vulnerable sectors. The Commission intends to make €7.5 billion in liquidity available in the coming weeks, which could be increased to €25 billion.

Regarding the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on the aviation industry, legislation will be proposed to temporarily loosen the airport slot usage obligations on airlines under EU law. Under the EU Airport Slots Regulation (EEC 95/93), airlines are required to use 80 % of their allocated slots, or face losing their right to such slots in future seasons. The European Council will follow up on all of these issues during its meeting on 26-27 March 2020.

Read this ‘At a glance’ on ‘Outcome of the video-conference call of EU Heads of State or Government on10 March 2020‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© Oleksii Synelnykov / Shutterstock

The highly contagious new coronavirus, known as COVID-19, is spreading globally at a very rapid pace, having infected about 114 000 people and killed nearly 4 000 at the time of writing, according to the situation report from the World Health Organization (WHO). It has sparked fears of a global pandemic with unpredictable consequences, including significant potential economic damage. China, Italy, Iran, South Korea, Japan, and now France, Germany and Spain, are the countries most affected by the virus. These and other governments are facing a very major challenge to stop the spread of the disease and ward off a deep economic crisis.

This note offers links to recent commentaries and reports from international think tanks on the coronavirus and related issues.

How Europe should manage the Coronavirus-induced crisis
Centre for European Policy Studies, March 2020

Uncharted territory: Italy’s response to the coronavirus
European Council on Foreign Relations, March 2020

How to fight the economic fallout from the Coronavirus
Chatham House, March 2020

Designing an effective US policy response to Coronavirus
Peterson Institute for International Economics, March 2020

To save the Italian economy from the Coronavirus, Rome prescribes a stimulus
Bruegel, March 2020

Ill will: Populism and the Coronavirus
European Council on Foreign Relations, March 2020

Economics in the time of COVID-19
Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry, March 2020

Coronavirus outbreak intensifies: Q&A with RAND experts
Rand Corporation, March 2020

China and Japan sharing weal and woe in the face of epidemic
China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, March 2020

ROK’s COVID-19 epidemic tendency and Sino-ROK cooperation
China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, March 2020
The Coronavirus outbreak could disrupt the U.S. drug supply
Council on Foreign Relations, March 2020

A Japan divided over COVID-19 control
East Asia Forum, March 2020

Will Covid-19 topple China’s one-party regime?
German Marshall Fund, March 2020

Coronavirus is already changing the world
Atlantic Council, March 2020

What should a fiscal response to a COVID-19 outbreak look like?
Brookings Institution, March 2020

Russia’s not ready for Coronavirus
Council on Foreign Relations, March 2020
Governments and businesses brace for Coronavirus impact
Atlantic Council, March 2020

The Coronavirus is exposing the limits of populism
Brookings Institution, March 2020

Africa confronts falling oil prices amid Coronavirus
Council on Foreign Relations, March 2020

Coronavirus and the oil market: The effects thus far and what to expect next
Atlantic Council, March 2020

The Coronavirus will reveal hidden vulnerabilities in complex global supply chains
Brookings Institution, March 2020

The impact of Coronavirus on Gulf economies
Atlantic Council, March 2020

If Italy gets sick, the whole world catches a cold
American Enterprise Institute, March 2020

COVID-19: Tips for a saner digital diet in these viral times
Heinrich Böll Stiftung, March 2020

The cruise that escaped COVID-19 outbreak
China Institute of International Studies, March 2020

The Coronavirus outbreak is the shape of things to come
Council on Foreign Relations, February 2020

China’s fight against COVID-19 epidemic: A decisive campaign
Shanghai Institutes for International Studies, February 2020

The Coronavirus and freedom of expression in China: Not so fast
Istituto Affari Internazionali, February 2020

What you need to know about the Coronavirus outbreak
Council on Foreign Relations, February 2020

As the Coronavirus spreads, can the EU afford to close its borders?
Bruegel, February 2020

China and the geopolitics of the Coronavirus
Clingendael, February 2020

How to save lives in a COVID-19 pandemic
Resolve to Save Lives, February 2020

Companies must move supply chains further from China
Bruegel, February 2020

Preparing for the Coronavirus and other epidemics in Africa
Brookings Institution, February 2020

Preparing for pandemics such as Coronavirus: Will we ever break the vicious cycle of panic and neglect?
Brookings Institution, February 2020

Epidemic tests China’s supply chain dominance
Bruegel, February 2020

China’s Coronavirus will not lead to recession but to stimulus and even more debt
Bruegel, February 2020

Read this briefing on ‘Coronavirus (COVID-19)‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Mihalis Kritikos,

© Shutterstock

Analytics have changed the way disease outbreaks are tracked and managed, thereby saving lives. The international community is currently focused on the 2019-2020 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, first identified in Wuhan, China. As it spreads, raising fears of a worldwide pandemic, international organisations and scientists are using artificial intelligence (AI) to track the epidemic in real-time, to effectively predict where the virus might appear next and develop an effective response.

On 31 December 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) received the first report of a suspected novel coronavirus (COVID-19) in Wuhan. Amid concerns that the global response is fractured and uncoordinated, the WHO declared the outbreak a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) under the International Health Regulations (IHR) on 30 January 2020. Warnings about the novel coronavirus spreading beyond China were raised by AI systems more than a week before official information about the epidemic was released by international organisations. A health monitoring start-up correctly predicted the spread of COVID‑19, using natural-language processing and machine learning. Decisions during such an outbreak need to be made on an urgent basis, often in the context of scientific uncertainty, fear, distrust, and social and institutional disruption. How can AI technologies be used to manage this type of global health emergency, without undermining protection of fundamental values and human rights?

Potential impacts and developments

In the case of COVID-19, AI has been used mostly to help detect whether people have novel coronavirus through the detection of visual signs of COVID-19 on images from lung CT scans; to monitor, in real time, changes in body temperature through the use of wearable sensors; and to provide an open-source data platform to track the spread of the disease. AI could process vast amounts of unstructured text data to predict the number of potential new cases by area and which types of populations will be most at risk, as well as evaluate and optimise strategies for controlling the spread of the epidemic. Other AI applications can deliver medical supplies by drone, disinfect patient rooms and scan approved drug databases (for other illnesses) that might also work against COVID-19. AI technologies have been harnessed to come up with new molecules that could serve as potential medications or even accelerate the time taken to predict the virus’s RNA secondary structure. A series of risk assessment algorithms for COVID-19 for use in healthcare settings have been developed, including an algorithm for the main actions that need to be followed for managing contacts of probable or confirmed COVID-19 cases, as developed by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control.

Certain AI applications can also detect fake news about the disease by applying machine-learning techniques for mining social media information, tracking down words that are sensational or alarming, and identifying which online sources are deemed authoritative for fighting what has been called an infodemic. Facebook, Google, Twitter and TikTok have partnered with the WHO to review and expose false information about COVID-19.

In public health emergency response management, derogating from an individual’s rights of privacy, non-discrimination and freedom of movement in the name of the urgency of the situation can sometimes take the form of restrictive measures that include domestic containment strategies without due process, or medical examination without informed consent. In the case of COVID-19, AI applications such as the use of facial recognition to track people not wearing masks in public, or AI-based fever detection systems, as well as the processing of data collected on digital platforms and mobile networks to track a person’s recent movements, have contributed to draconian enforcement of restraining measures for the confinement of the outbreak for unspecified durations. Chinese search giant Baidu has developed a system using infrared and facial recognition technology that scans and takes photographs of more than 200 people per minute at the Qinghe railway station in Beijing. In Moscow, authorities are using automated facial recognition technology to scan surveillance camera footage in an attempt to identify recent arrivals from China, placed under quarantine for fear of COVID‑19 infection and not expected to enter the station. Finally, Chinese authorities are deploying drones to patrol public places, conduct thermal imaging, or to track people violating quarantine rules.

Anticipatory policy-making

As a governance system, the WHO has limited enforcement tools, whereas its surveillance system is fully dependent on states’ willingness to meet their good-faith reporting requirements. However, reporting compliance remains low, raising questions about the ability of low and middle-income countries (LMICs) to meet IHR obligations in the absence of adequate resourcing and financial support and about the effectiveness of the main legal framework of ‘essential’ capacities required by nations to prevent, detect and rapidly respond to public health threats. However, AI technologies have the potential to challenge the state’s monopoly of information control and operationalise the WHO’s right to receive reports from non-state sources, particularly if and when those reports contradict reports provided by the state.

The development of vaccines and drugs in response to public health emergencies also presents particular legal and ethical challenges. The European Commission and the European Medicines Agency have put procedures in place to speed up the assessment and authorisation of vaccines for use during a public health emergency, either via the pandemic preparedness vaccine marketing authorisation or the emergency procedure. The EMA recently activated its plan for managing emerging health threats, whereas the Commission and the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) launched fast-track calls for proposals for the development of therapeutics and diagnostics to combat COVID-19 infections. Using the paragraph 6 system, provided by the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), countries are allowed to import cheaper generics made under compulsory licensing if they are unable to manufacture the medicines themselves. Adopting measures to counteract the potentially adverse health impact of IP protection and sharing preliminary research results with all actors in the response is a crucial component of any integrated global alert and response system for epidemics that aims at making the benefits of research available to the local population without undue delay. AI’s capacity to quickly search large databases and process vast amounts of medical data can essentially accelerate the development of a drug that can fight COVID-19 but also raises questions about the criteria used for the selection of the relevant data sets and possible algorithmic bias. Most public health systems lack the capacity to collect the data needed to train algorithms that would be reflective of the needs of local populations, take local practice patterns into account and ensure equity and fairness.

As public health emergencies can be deeply socially divisive, stretch public-health capacities and limit rights to privacy and informational self-determination, it is important for policy-makers to rationally consider the ethics of their crisis-management policies. Although the Siracusa Principles may allow for the provision of limitation, or derogation, from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), confining the outbreak of a lethal disease in emergency contexts should be ethically justifiable, necessary and proportionate. In all cases, least liberty-infringing alternatives should be used to achieve the public health goal. The WHO guidance for managing ethical issues in infectious disease outbreaks and the guidance on ethical issues in research in global health emergencies could help to ensure appropriate ethical oversight and collaboration, to help combat social stigmatisation of those affected, or perceived to be affected, by the disease.

However, given the absence of a comprehensive human rights framework that would underpin effective outbreak surveillance at the international level, the management of the risks associated with infectious diseases is likely to remain an ongoing challenge for global health governance. The massive use of AI tracking and surveillance tools in the context of this outbreak, combined with the current fragmentation in the ethical governance of AI, could pave the way for a wider and more permanent use of these surveillance technologies, leading to a situation known as ‘mission creep’. Coordinated action on inclusive risk assessment and strict interpretation of public health legal exemptions, such as that envisaged in Article 9 of the General Data Protection Regulation, will therefore be key to ensuring the responsible use of this disruptive technology during public health emergencies. Accordingly, preventing AI use from contributing to the establishment of new forms of automated social control, which could persist long after the epidemic subsides, must be addressed in ongoing legislative initiatives on AI at EU level.

Read this ‘At a glance’ on ‘What if we could fight coronavirus with artificial intelligence?‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© Waraporn Wattanakul / Shutterstock

The European Green Deal is a key policy plank of the new European Commission led by President Ursula von der Leyen. It is a package of measures that aims to radically cut emissions of greenhouse gases while creating jobs in clean industries. Its main objectives are for the EU to become climate neutral by 2050, radically reduce other types of pollution, help European companies to become world leaders in green products, and offer aid to regions affected by this economic transition.

This note offers links to recent commentaries, studies and reports from international think tanks on the Green Deal and climate issues. More studies on the topics can be found in a previous item from these series, published in early December 2019.

Europe’s Green Deal must reach beyond its borders
Bruegel, February 2020

Digging the trenches: The EU and the Green Deal
European Council on Foreign Relations, February 2020

Five things to look for in the Green New Deal
World Resources Institute, February 2020

The EU Green Deal can go global, but ‘climate diplomacy’ won’t be easy
Friends of Europe, February 2020

The European Green Deal: Winning the climate change
Centre international de formation européenne, February 2020

Berlin will make or break the European Green Deal
Bruegel, February 2020

There is no Green Deal without a just transition
Instituto Affari Internazionali, February 2020

Low carbon energy transition as a driver and solution to energy poverty and injustice
Centre international de formation européenne, February 2020

Are financial markets aligned with climate action? New evidence from the Paris Agreement
LCE, Gratham Instutute on Climate Change, Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy February 2020

How to implement a WTO-compatible full border carbon adjustment as an important part of the European Green Deal
Österreichische Gesellschaft für Europapolitik, January 2020

European green finance is expanding, a discount on bank capital would discredit it
Bruegel, January 2020

What businesses can do for the European Green Deal
Jacquest Delors Institute, January 2020

The just transition fund: 4 benchmarks for success
E3G, January 2020

Climat: l’Europe a brûlé ses vaisseaux
Terra Nova, January 2020

The colour of money: Green deals, cohesion funds, and the populist challenge
European Council on Foreign Relations, January 2020

Climate laws in Europe
Ecologic Institute, January 2020

A trillion reasons to scrutinise the Green Deal Investment Plan
Bruegel, January 2020

How the European Green Deal will succeed or fail
E3G, December 2019

The Green Deal will make or break Europe
European Council on Foreign Relations, December 2019

Can Europe offer a Green Deal to the world?
Centre for European Policy Studies, December 2019

EU trade policy: Global enforcer for the European Green Deal
European Policy Centre, December 2019

Making the political weather to combat climate change
Centre for European Policy Studies, December 2019

Ein flexibler Kompromiss: Der Europäische Rat trägt den European Green Deal mit
Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, December 2019

The European Green Deal needs a reformed fiscal framework
Bruegel, December 2019

The European Green Deal: A promising start and a long road ahead
European Policy Centre, December 2019

Delivering climate neutrality: Accelerating EU decarbonisation with research and innovation funding
E3G, December 2019

Boosting EU climate finance: Mitigate more without neglecting adaptation in poorer countries
European Centre for Development Policy Management, December 2019

European Green Deal: Bring in the Western Balkans
European Council on Foreign Relations, December 2019

Five pillars for a CO2-free industry in Europe and Italy
Instituto Affairi Internazionali, December 2019

EU climate policy as a challenge for Central Europe
E3G, December 2019

A budget to address the climate emergency
Heinrich Böll Stiftung, December 2019

Raising the game on Paris Alignment: Six memos on the multilateral development banks’ Paris alignment approach
New Climate Institute, December 2019

National laws and policies on climate change Adaptation: A global review
Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, December 2019

Social consequences of climate change: Building climate friendly and resilient communities via transition from planned to market economies
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, December 2019

Read this briefing on ‘The European Green Deal‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Gianluca Quaglio with Sophie Millar,

Drug development: heavily ‘drug-focused’ rather than ‘patient-focused’

©/Lightspring/Shutterstock.com

For a drug to be prescribed to a patient, it must first be rigorously tested for efficacy and safety and subsequently be approved by relevant authoritative bodies, such as the European Medicines Agency (EMA). However, it has been underlined that the current framework of drug development is heavily ‘drug-focused’ rather than ‘patient-focused’. This means that the end users of the drug, the patients, are not generally placed at the centre of the drug development paradigm. In other words, achieving regulatory approval is seen as the ultimate goal, eclipsing somewhat the use of a drug in its real-world setting. This is not helped by the lack of regulatory demands or incentives for gathering such real world data.

Clinical trials generally recruit a very specific set of participants with small variability, who do not ultimately fully reflect the target population to receive the novel therapy under investigation. The resulting ‘research gap’ highlights the disconnect between the pre-approval development of medicines and their post-approval use in real-world contexts (Figure 1). In Europe, most clinical research focuses primarily on drug development for regulatory approval, instead of addressing patient and public-health needs.

Figure 1 – Research gap between drug development and real world healthcare delivery ©Pot Regnier/STOA

Establishing treatment optimisation as part of personalised medicine development

A shift in drug development is emerging, with momentum towards greater recognition of precision or personalised medicine and patient-centred approaches. The Council of the European Union, while accepting that there is no common definition of the term precision (personalised) medicine, noted that this is generally understood to refer to a medical model that uses the characterisation of individuals’ phenotypes and genotypes to tailor the right therapeutic strategy for the right person at the right time and/or to determine the predisposition to disease and/or to deliver a targeted prevention strategy (Council of the EU, 2015).

A patient-focused approach, termed treatment optimisation or applied research, would bridge the gap between the first stage (regulatory approval) and the second stage (real-world application) of drug development, giving strength to the direction of personalised medicine development.

Numerous drugs are authorised on the market, with limited knowledge on how to use them for dose, sequence, combination and duration of treatment. The treatment optimisation approach could answer questions such as: whether a lower dose of the drug could produce the same results with potentially fewer toxic side effects; how the drug performs in terms of patient-relevant outcome measures such as quality of life and overall survival; and long-term use effects. There is therefore a need for investigation of the optimal way to use medicines.

Role of key stakeholders in the current drug development system

Developing a drug and bringing it into clinical practice is a complex process involving multiple partners in several areas, namely: (i) pharmaceutical industry; (ii) regulatory agencies; (iii) payers (in healthcare, this term generally refers to entities other than patients that finance or reimburse the cost of health services); (iv) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies; (iv) clinicians; (v) patients; (iv) academia. Although they have a common goal (the benefit of the patient), they work with different priorities and methodology. For example, while pharmaceutical companies seek – among other things – profit, researchers want to develop their medical tools and academic career, regulators assess the therapeutic efficacy, and payers make sure that the medical innovations are worth the public investment (Figure 2).

©Pot Regnier/STOA

The presence of different actors in the drug development process does not help to narrow the research gap between the first stage and the second stage of drug development.

The STOA study

How do we move to more patient and society-centred drug development, taking all stakeholders’ perspectives and needs into account? It is about bridging the gap between two dimensions that are often misunderstood: (i) efficacy, which is demonstrated under controlled conditions in classical clinical drug trials, and (ii) effectiveness, defined as how a drug performs in the real world of widely varying patients and doctors in different types of hospitals and clinics.

To provide direction in enabling the implementation of treatment optimisation, 26 experts across 5 stakeholder groups were interviewed for a study carried out by the European Parliament Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA) and entitled ‘Treatment optimisation in drug development’. The report was carried out in collaboration with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). The interviewees represented patient organisations, regulator and payer authorities, the pharmaceutical industry, health technology assessment agencies, and academic clinicians.

The majority of interviewees agreed that there are insufficient patient-centred approaches and real-world evidence, and a lack of adequate patient involvement during the design stage of clinical trials. The report highlights that both patient-centred and drug-centred approaches are needed and should indeed complement each other.

A number of important recommendations from interviewees regarding how to implement treatment optimisation strategies emerged, covering the process, funding, timing, design and setting for the conduct of studies. Interviewees either proposed that the process should be led by a consortium of all key stakeholders, or by academia and not-for-profit organisations with input from industry (e.g. drug supply). There was some agreement on funding, in that it should come from a combination of public and private sources. Setting-wise, interviewees either did not have a strong preference (case-by-case basis), or suggested that it should take place at a national level with possible international oversight.

In regard to the design of treatment optimisation methods, the following key features emerged from the interviews: fewer inclusion and exclusion criteria; standard of care or best available treatment as comparators; use of patient-relevant outcome measures; and publication of all results. No clear consensus was reached on blinding (whether participants or study staff should know what treatment is being followed) or randomisation.

Policy options arising from this study centred on when in the drug development ‘pipeline’ the treatment optimisation process should take place, and by which legal mechanism. Three main policy options emerged. Briefly, these were: (i) making the conduct of treatment optimisation studies part of the requirements that manufacturers have to satisfy in order to obtain marketing authorisation for their products; (ii) including treatment optimisation studies as part of the post-authorisation commitments; and (iii) conditional reimbursement mechanisms employed to compel the manufacturers to carry out treatment optimisation studies.

Whatever policy approach prevails, it is clear that significant political effort will be needed for the current legislative frameworks to be modified, at both European and national level.

Written by Marketa Pape,

© MNBB Studio / Shutterstock.com

Transport is a strategic sector of the EU economy. Essential to ensuring free movement, it enables people and goods to overcome distances, borders and natural barriers, directly affecting the everyday lives of all EU citizens. Maintaining the flow of goods from producers and manufacturers to consumers makes efficient transport systems a backbone of European integration. For the single market to function well in all regions, the EU needs sustainable, efficient and fully interconnected transport networks.

As the demand for transport services grows, reducing transport emissions and negative impacts on human health and the environment has become one of the main challenges. New technologies, such as digitalisation, and connected and automated mobility, open new possibilities to improve transport safety, security and efficiency, and to reduce emissions, but also transform the employment in the sector in terms of working conditions and required skills. Collaborative economy developments, such as car-sharing and bike-sharing services are changing user behaviour and mobility patterns. EU transport policy needs to help the sector cut emissions drastically by running on less and cleaner energy, utilise modern infrastructure, and reduce its impact on the environment.

The new President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, has put transport on a fast track towards becoming decarbonised and digital. This transformation is to be a key part of her European Green Deal and ‘making Europe fit for the digital age’ priorities. In 2020, the Commission will propose a ‘climate law’, committing the EU to becoming climate neutral by 2050. The European Council has endorsed this objective and Parliament had already called for ambitious goals and a corresponding long-term EU budget. While concrete steps towards this ambitious goal remain to be defined, it will require a step change to make transport modern, sustainable and decarbonised.

Read the complete Briefing on ‘EU policies – Delivering for citizens: Transport policy ‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘Transport policy‘ on YouTube.

Written by Philip Boucher,

© Shutterstock

The world of work is regularly disrupted by technology development. From mass production to word processing, innovations have regularly transformed our working lives and, with them, the broader economic system. Artificial intelligence (AI) is the latest in a long line of such technologies. What would happen if AI worked just as well as (or perhaps better than) humans, without taking holidays, getting sick, joining unions or drawing salaries?

AI is defined as systems that ‘display intelligent behaviour by analysing their environment and taking actions – with some degree of autonomy – to achieve specific goals’. In the context of employment, AI could support workers in some tasks, and replace them in others, while offering productivity gains and, potentially, creating new jobs. A fair distribution of costs and benefits depends upon careful management of the rise of AI in the workplace.

Potential impacts and developments

If automation is often directed at ‘dull, dirty and dangerous’ tasks, AI may be stretching the definition of what counts as dull. As they become more capable, AI applications start to perform tasks that may be repetitive and labour intensive, but still require advanced skills and training. For example, AI can now be used to review legal texts. Since human lawyers are still needed to oversee and make use of this work, the result is task displacement and a reduction in the labour needed to do the same amount of work. This could translate into job losses, which might be compensated by lower costs leading to more demand for work, as well as new jobs in the creation and management of automated systems. Estimates vary wildly about how jobs will be created, transformed and lost. Some say 14 % of jobs could be automated, others say 47 %. Digitalisation has created 2 million jobs in the EU over the last 10 years and might continue to create new ones, but this is not automatic. Given the scale and uncertainty of the risks and opportunities, discussions quickly turn to the distribution of costs and benefits.

Several scenarios have emerged. For the pessimists, AI will lead to more unequal societies, as those who can perform valuable tasks or have a stake in the means of production grow wealthy, while the rest face unemployment and poverty. Unlike previous waves of automation, workers lose their role in the production system and, with it, their negotiating position, leading to the emergence of an irrelevant underclass. For the optimists, however, job obsolescence is not a problem if the very concept of employment is also made obsolete. It has been suggested that AI could take over almost all jobs, allowing us to build a ‘Digital Athens‘, in which robots take the unenviable role of slaves, liberating people to occupy themselves exclusively with interpersonal, creative, leisure and sporting activities. Some might choose to work, for satisfaction or additional payment, in technology development or roles where human contact is central, such as providing social care. These two visions appear to be in opposition, but have also been combined into a single vision in which a few countries profit from AI development and provide for their citizens, while others fall behind, leading to pockets of extreme wealth and extreme poverty in different parts of the world.

These scenarios are deliberately provocative, compelling us to reflect upon how AI development and its impacts should be managed. There are many social and technical differences between historic waves of technology development, and it would be reckless to rely upon a few trite observations to simply assume that AI will create as many jobs as it displaces, or that the affected workers will find their way and ultimately be grateful for the transitions that upend their lives. For this reason, it is important to reflect upon the impacts of AI on employment and prepare appropriate responses.

Anticipatory policy-making

The resolution on civil law rules on robotics, adopted by the European Parliament (EP) in 2017, highlighted potential skills shortages, gender inequality issues and the need to ensure the long-term sufficiency of social security systems. A 2018 EP resolution on digitalisation for development highlighted that digital strategies should be aligned with initiatives on education, equality and empowerment. A 2019 resolution on industrial policy in the context of AI highlighted the need for new programmes for education for all ages, as well as training and reskilling initiatives that engage the private sector and the existing workforce.

Along these lines, a range of measures could be taken to ensure that the workers of today and tomorrow have the skills they need to navigate their professional lives, and that society has the skills and capabilities needed to exploit the opportunities for beneficial development of AI. To ensure that the disruption is mobilised to reverse rather than exacerbate social inequalities, such programmes should include initiatives to reduce digital divides, embrace diversity and ensure an equitable distribution of costs and benefits.

Curriculums for the digital age. Even without specific reference to AI development, it is clear that students will benefit from learning computer science and programming. While this will be important for many students’ future careers, it will be valuable for everyone’s ability to navigate and understand their increasingly digital lives. These disciplines could be introduced at an earlier age and for a greater portion of time than today, and could also be combined with other disciplines, for example by applying programming skills to assignments in the sciences and humanities. As job markets are expected to change more rapidly in the future, the next generation of employees may benefit from learning more transferable skills and from ‘learning to learn’. This could be achieved through a greater focus on skill acquisition and problem solving in school curricula. AI training could also be included in the university curriculum for future lawyers, doctors and other professionals who may need to work closely with the technology as their careers advance.

Continued learning for employees. Substantial retraining for mid-career workers would help employers and employees alike to manage transitions in the nature of work and the skills required to flourish. However, once people start their careers, further education is usually limited to either very short courses offered by employers or longer programmes targeting unemployed people. The concept and delivery of continued learning could be renewed to support more proactive retraining that anticipates changing needs during employment. This could include creating new ways of delivering, certifying and financing mid-career retraining that is delivered ‘on-the-job’ with support from universities and professional institutes.

New career roles. It is easier to see how AI can displace current jobs than it is to imagine those it may create. When opportunities for new roles emerge, support could be offered to help employers develop them into established career paths. For example, digital advisors could help users manage their privacy settings, hold service providers to account when rules and agreements are breached, and advise either of them on new risks and liabilities. This and many other career paths require a particular blend of skills (legal, technical and communication), as well as broad recognition and trust. To support the flourishing of such roles, the vocational and professional training sector could be engaged to develop bespoke certification and skill development programmes. Authorities could also stimulate demand by offering new services to citizens, creating roles within the public sector and through public procurement.

Protect platform workers. AI is closely linked to many sectors of the ‘platform economy’, which has blurred the lines between employees and independent workers. These workers depend upon platforms, but have limited access to their algorithms or the vast amounts of data that is collected from across the networks. Furthermore, they often lack the safety nets provided by traditional employers such as regular hours, pension schemes, sick pay and family leave. Measures could be taken to ensure coverage of social protection and collective representation for these and other workers that are vulnerable to unfair distribution of the costs and benefits of AI development.

Further resolutions on fair working conditions, rights and social protection for platform workers and AI in education are in preparation.

Read the complete ‘At a glance’ on ‘What if artificial intelligence made work obsolete?‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘What if artificial intelligence made work obsolete?‘ on YouTube.

Written by Clare Ferguson,

© artjazz / Fotolia

In view of the novel coronavirus outbreak, the European Parliament is implementing a range of precautionary measures. However, the Parliament has a duty to maintain its legislative work, and therefore the plenary session is still planned to take place (although the session will now be held in Brussels), with a number of pressing issues on the agenda. The Council and European Commission are expected to make statements on the novel coronavirus on Tuesday morning. Members are likely to support a coordinated European Union (EU) response to minimising the health and economic impact of the epidemic, with a vote on a motion for resolution scheduled for Thursday lunchtime.

International Women’s Day takes place on 8 March, and Members will hear statements from the Council and Commission on women as key agents for change on Tuesday morning. Indeed, young women (such as Greta Thunberg, who addressed Parliament’s Environment Committee on 4 March 2020), are increasingly making their mark on the world stage. However, gender inequalities persist despite the opportunities offered by the digital revolution, and Members will take stock of women’s rights in the digital age in a topical debate on Wednesday afternoon.

On Wednesday morning, Members will hear Council and Commission statements on the migration situation at the Greek-Turkish border and the EU response, where weaknesses in the Dublin system of international protection applications are likely once again to come to the fore. While proposals on EU budget financing for activities related to migration and border management are already on the table for the 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework (MFF), these are yet to be agreed. In a joint debate on Wednesday morning, Members will also hear statements on the conclusions of the special European Council meeting on the next MFF, and on preparations for the European Council meeting scheduled for 26 and 27 March.

Members will hear a number of statements from the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (VP/HR) on Tuesday afternoon. The first concerns a key EU strategic partner in the neighbourhood, Georgia, where elections are due in October 2020. The current government is under considerable criticism for its failure to progress on democratic reform. However, Parliament hopes its support of the country’s membership of the Eastern Partnership will encourage the government to implement the reforms called for under its Association Agreement with the EU. Members will vote on a motion for resolution on Thursday. The VP/HR will also make a statement marking five years of implementation of the Minsk agreements, which were intended to provide a roadmap to move from war to peace in Ukraine. Following Russian incursion, fighting in Ukraine led to EU sanctions on Russia in 2014. As the Minsk agreements have had limited success, fighting continues and the sanctions remain in place. Parliament has repeatedly underlined the Kremlin’s responsibility for the implementation of the Minsk accords. On Thursday, Members will vote on a motion for resolution on the five years of implementation.

Small businesses are the backbone of the EU economy, and a joint debate on Tuesday afternoon will focus on the EU strategies on small and medium-sized businesses and European industry, where Parliament has been keen to support Commission efforts to reduce red tape and administrative burden. Such businesses are also one focus of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL) report on the employment aspects of the 2020 Annual Growth Survey, which Members will discuss on Wednesday afternoon. The report is a step in the European Semester process, which allows EU countries to coordinate on economic reform and budget plans. The committee welcomes the Commission’s focus on attaining the Sustainable Development Goals, and makes several proposals to boost measures to tackle poverty, gender equality and access to health, all aimed at ensuring a just transition in a fair society.

Parliament plays a vital role in scrutinising such EU policy. Parliament’s committees therefore review several major policy areas and prepare an annual report. On Monday evening, Members will consider two Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) reports, where the committee calls for greater Parliamentary involvement in the process. The first report, on the state of play on banking union in 2019, acknowledges the need for a solid banking union to underpin the economy and to encourage competitiveness and convergence. However, the committee calls for greater advances in risk sharing, particularly in face of the threats associated with climate change or digital weaknesses and more specifically, the challenge posed by the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU. The second report deals with a review of EU competition policy in 2019. In view of the increased importance of global markets, the EU needs robust policy with international reach. The committee underlines the need, among other measures, to boost European market leaders and reinforce international standards, particularly in the digital field. While supporting the use of State aid for the European Green Deal, the committee also proposes introducing measures to fine countries that distort competition through State aid.

Finally, during voting on Wednesday, the Fisheries Committee recommends that Parliament consent to the conclusion of a new Protocol on the implementation of the EU–São Tomé and Príncipe fisheries agreement. Under the agreement, in exchange for €840 000 in EU assistance (more than half of which is earmarked to promote sustainable fisheries), São Tomé and Príncipe grants access for EU vessels to tuna stocks in the region.