European Union

Next AFET committee meeting will be held on:

• Wednesday 25 and Thursday 26 February, room SPAAK 1A002, Brussels

Meetings are webstreamed with the exception of agenda items held "in camera".

AFET - DROI calendar of meetings 2026
Meeting documents
Webstreaming
Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

President Metsola on opening the February plenary session: announcement of extraordinary plenary session, votes on Ukraine Facility and Support Loan.

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

President Metsola on opening the February plenary session: announcement of extraordinary plenary session, votes on Ukraine Facility and Support Loan.

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

It's unlikely Iran's diplomats would be jumping ship if they believed the regime was sustainable. Now is the time to isolate Tehran even further, cutting all diplomatic ties and signalling to other would-be turncoats that it's now or never

The lawmaker is part of a minority coalition government that will be sworn in on 23 February

Warning comes after the head of the International Seabed Authority lobbied officials in Brussels

Written by Tim Peters and Jakub Przetacznik with Silke Maes.

On 18 December 2025, the European Council agreed to a €90 billion loan to Ukraine to cover the country’s financial needs in the years 2026 and 2027. The European Commission has subsequently presented three legislative proposals to implement the European Council’s decision: (i) a proposal for a €90 billion Ukraine Support Loan financed by the EU except for Czechia, Hungary and Slovakia; (ii) a proposal to amend the Ukraine Facility to use it for the disbursement of the new loan; and (iii) a proposal to amend the EU’s multiannual financial framework to use it as a guarantee for the loan, and to finance the grants used for the borrowing cost subsidy.

The loan will be financed through EU borrowing on the capital markets backed by the EU budget’s headroom. The EU budget will pay for the interest rates and other associated costs for Ukraine.

While €30 billion of the loan are meant to support the Ukrainian budget, €60 billion will be used to strengthen Ukraine’s defence capabilities. The Commission proposal stipulates that defence products financed from the loan should, in principle, originate from the EU, European Economic Area, European Free Trade Area and Ukraine. Only if products are not available there, or cannot be delivered fast enough, can products from other third countries be bought.

In the past, Article 41(2) of the Treaty on European Union had been seen as an obstacle to financing weapons and military equipment from the EU budget. However, as the proposed Ukraine Support Loan is based on Article 212 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the rules on the EU’s common foreign and security policy do not apply.

Legislative Proposals

• COM(2026) 20 – Proposal for a regulation implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the Ukraine Support Loan for 2026 and 2027
• COM(2026) 22 – Proposal for a regulation amending Regulation (EU) 2024/792 establishing the Ukraine Facility
• COM(2026) 21 – Amended proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2093 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2021 to 2027

Read the complete study on ‘EU support for Ukraine for 2026-2027‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

ECA warns new CAP design could fragment the single EU market

Global health group warns deepfakes could worsen vaccine uptake

DRAFT OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Connecting Europe Facility for the period 2028-2034, amending Regulation (EU) 2024/1679 and repealing Regulation (EU) 2021/1153
Committee on Security and Defence
Petras Auštrevičius

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

EU unity gives way to the rise of multi-country coalitions

Some applicants refuse to give up on the dream of a permanent EU job, despite repeated failure

Green groups warn of ‘recycled’ bottles made from virgin petroleum, while recyclers fear lost market share

Quelle : © Europäische Union, 2026 - EP

By exporting Ukrainian arms, the country will attract funds to purchase the weapons it needs on the front lines

Monday 9 February

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Monday 9 February

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Credit: Port Vila Market, Vanuatu – Kevin Hellon / shutterstock.com

By Tobias Ide
Feb 9 2026 (IPS)

 
The Pacific Island countries are at the frontline of climate change. Their territories mostly consist of small, low-lying islands, with long coastlines and vast ocean spaces between them. Many livelihoods are based on agriculture or fishing, and importing water or food is often infeasible or expensive. This makes those large ocean nations highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, such as storms, droughts, and rising sea levels. Analysts have expressed concerns that this can result in various forms of socio-political conflict.

However, the Pacific Island countries have received scarce attention in research on climate change and conflict. This is surprising given the Pacific Island countries’ high climate vulnerability and increasing geopolitical relevance. A few years back, a Nature article did not find a single peer-reviewed study on the climate-conflict nexus in the Pacific. And while recent work added important insights on potential pathways between climate and conflict in the Pacific Island countries, the region remains understudied.

A new study tackles this knowledge gap by systematically collecting data on conflict events (such as protests, riots, and communal violence) in Fiji, Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu. It then determines statistical associations between the occurrence of such conflicts—protests, riots, communal violence etc.—and climate extremes like storms, heatwaves, and floods. The results are surprising.

Climate extremes do not drive conflict risks

The researchers found that climate disasters are not a significant predictor of conflict events. This is true for both cities and rural areas. In cities, high values of (and competition for) land, immigration after disasters, and opportunities for political mobilisation have long been considered to make climate-related conflicts more likely, yet no such statistical signal was detected. Even when looking only at conflicts around natural resources like water or forests, climate extremes are not a good predictor.

These findings could nuance common wisdom about climate change and conflict. Experts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have concluded that climate change increases conflict risks, even though other conflict drivers are more important. Such a linkage is particularly likely in climate vulnerable regions with a history of political instability, and it is also more applicable to low-intensity conflicts like protests (as compared to large-scale violence like civil wars). Yet, the study focuses on such smaller-scale conflict. Fiji, Solomon Island, and Vanuatu are also highly vulnerable to climate change and suffered through political instability (coups, civil war, and unrest) in the past.

How to make sense of the absence of conflict

As a starting point, it is important to clarify three things. First, the absence of conflict does not necessarily imply peace, particularly if those least responsible for climate change suffer most from its consequences. Second, the study focuses on visible and collective forms of conflict. Disasters, but also competition for disaster-related support schemes, might well result in lower-level, less visible forms of conflict, such as household and intimate partner violence or lower social cohesion within communities. Studying these forms of conflict is certainly a key task for future work. Third, evidence is not perfect. The new study, for instance, covers only the period 2012 to 2020, studies just three Pacific Island countries, and could not include rainfall anomalies due to a lack of data.

That said, the absence of a correlation between climate extremes and socio-political conflict events is still noteworthy. It indicates the Pacific Islands have significant levels of agency and resilience. This is not to romanticise local communities and national governments—as everywhere in the world, they have their share of tensions and shortcomings. But the Pacific Island countries possess well-established traditional institutions and, at least in some areas, strong community and civil society networks. Given their remote location, tropical climate, and oceanic geography, they have plenty of knowledge and experience in dealing with climate extremes like droughts, floods, and storms as well. These are important assets for coping peacefully with the impacts of climate change.

Consider the example of Vanuatu after cyclone Pam in 2015. Despite being one of the most intense storms to ever hit the South Pacific, the death toll was relatively low, and the country recovered rather quickly from its impacts. This was the case because local community structures and NGO-led Community Climate Change Committees coordinated well, and they thus played a key role in preparing for the storm and in delivering disaster relief and recovery. These activities did not just utilise but also strengthened traditional social networks. Furthermore, state institutions effectively utilised the inflow of international aid to deal with the cyclone’s impacts, thereby increasing trust in the government. Consequentially, no major conflicts erupted in the aftermath of Pam.

Avoid doomsday thinking – and provide tailored support

Which insights can decision makers draw from these findings?

It is important to avoid doomsday scenarios when thinking about climate change in the Pacific. For sure, the respective countries are highly exposed to and quite vulnerable to climate change. But if policy makers and media portray the Pacific Island countries as helpless victims of climate change and prone to conflict, the consequences are problematic: a lack of economic investment, external support mostly focussed on relocation, and an ignorance of local capacities.

By contrast, emphasising how Pacific communities successfully deal with and maintain peace in the context of climate change provides different perspectives. It highlights how local communities and state institutions (despite not being perfect) have significant capacities for climate change adaptation and bottom-up peacebuilding. National governments and international donors should utilise those capacities by providing tailored support, responding to the needs and priorities of those on the frontline of climate change. Rather than preliminary resignation or relocation, this can support the building of climate-resilient peace.

Related articles:
There Is No Security Without Development, Anything Else Is a Distraction
Do We Need a Pacific Peace Index?
The Trump Presidency and Climate Security in the Indo-Pacific Region

Tobias Ide is Associate Professor in Politics and International Relations at Murdoch University Perth. Until recently, he was also Adjunct Associate Professor of International Relations at the Brunswick University of Technology. He has published widely on the intersections of the environment, climate change, peace, conflict and security, including in Global Environmental Change, International Affairs, Journal of Peace Research, Nature Climate Change, and World Development. He is also a director of the Environmental Peacebuilding Association.

This article was issued by the Toda Peace Institute and is being republished from the original with their permission.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Nature-positive business operations can contribute to both business success and the environment, according to IPBES’ Business Biodiversity Assessment. Credit: iStock/IPBES

By Busani Bafana
BULAWAYO, Zimbabwe & MANCHESTER, United Kingdom, Feb 9 2026 (IPS)

Business can still remain profitable while protecting the environment but invest in nature-positive operations, says a landmark report by the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), which finds that global companies have contributed to the escalating loss of biodiversity.

The IPBES Methodological Assessment Report on the Impact and Dependence of Business on Biodiversity and Nature’s Contributions to People, known as the Business and Biodiversity Report, says global business has benefited from nature but has immensely contributed to the decline in biodiversity. It is time it changes how it does business because biodiversity decline is a “critical systemic risk threatening the economy, financial stability, and human well-being.”

The global economy, driven by business, is dependent on healthy biodiversity and nature for materials, climate regulation, clean water, and pollination. However, the current economic system treats nature as free and infinite, creating perverse incentives for its exploitation. Businesses are largely rewarded for short-term profit, even when their activities degrade the natural systems they rely on, creating a huge risk to the economy and society, the report said.

The cover of the Business and Biodiversity Report. Credit: IPBES

It Must Be Business Unusual Now

Approved at the recent 12th session of the IPBES Plenary, held in Manchester, United Kingdom, the report calls for the end of business as usual. Global businesses, heavily dependent on nature and impacted by nature, must quickly change their operations or face collapse.

“Businesses and other key actors can either lead the way towards a more sustainable global economy or ultimately risk extinction… both of species in nature but potentially also their own,” noted the report.

Based on thousands of sources and prepared over three years by 79 leading experts from 35 countries from all regions of the world, the report is the first assessment of the impacts and dependencies of business on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people.

Current conditions perpetuate business as usual and do not support the transformative change necessary to halt and reverse biodiversity loss, said the report, pointing out that large subsidies that drive biodiversity losses are directed to business activities with the support of businesses and trade associations.

For example, in 2023, global public and private finance flows with directly negative impacts on nature were estimated at USD 7.3 trillion. Of this amount, private finance accounted for USD 4.9 trillion, with public spending on environmentally harmful subsidies at about USD 2.4 trillion, the report said.

In contrast, USD 220 billion in public and private finance flows were directed to activities contributing to the conservation and restoration of biodiversity, representing just 3 percent of the public funds and incentives that encourage harmful business behaviour or prevent behaviour beneficial to biodiversity.

The new report shows that business as usual is not inevitable – with the right policies, as well as financial and cultural shifts, what is good for nature is also what is best for profitability, said Prof. Stephen Polasky, co-chair of the assessment, who highlighted that the loss of biodiversity was among the most serious threats to business.

“Business as usual may once have seemed profitable in the short term, but impacts across multiple businesses can have cumulative effects, aggregating to global impacts, which can cross ecological tipping points,” Polasky said.

Polasky said during a press briefing today (February 9, 2026) that business can immediately act without waiting for governments to create an enabling environment. They can measure their impact and dependencies by increasing the efficiencies of their operation, reducing waste and understanding new business opportunities and products.

A 2019 Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services by IPBES warned that one million species face extinction in the next few years as a result of overexploitation of resources, development, and other human activities, posing serious consequences for people and the planet.

Global business, which turns profits from nature, has contributed to the loss of biodiversity as a result of poor production practices that have poisoned river systems, emitted dangerous high greenhouse gases and led to land degradation. This is despite business being affected by natural disasters, from extreme weather floods and droughts to climate change.

The report is the latest assessment by IPBES, an independent intergovernmental body comprising more than 150 member governments. IPBES, often described as the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) for biodiversity, provides policymakers with objective scientific assessments about the state of knowledge regarding the planet’s biodiversity, ecosystems and the contributions they make to people.

IPBES Chair, David Oburo,  said the assessments done by IPBES are balanced by the knowledge systems needed to integrate information business and its impacts and dependencies on biodiversity.

He said there is a need to move away from the scientific language often used in talking about impacts and dependencies of businesses to simplifying it to be about risks and opportunities “so that the messaging that comes out from our assessments is really accessible to the audience that needs to access that information.”

The IPBES methodological assessment report warned that the current system was broken because what is profitable for businesses often results in loss of biodiversity.

A Peruvian indigenous Quechua woman weaving a textile with the traditional techniques in Cusco, Peru. The IPBES Business and Biodiversity Report suggests business should integrate Indigenous knowledge into their operations. Credit: iStock/IPBES

IPBES Executive Secretary, Luthando Dziba, said nature was everybody’s business. The conservation and restorative use of biodiversity is central to business success. Although businesses have contributed to innovations that have driven improvement of living standards, that same success had come at the cost of biodiversity.

An Enabling Environment Is Good for Biodiversity

The report offers a key solution of creating a new “enabling environment” where what is profitable for business aligns with what is good for biodiversity and society. Current conditions — laws, financial systems, corporate reporting rules, and cultural norms — do not reward businesses for protecting nature.

There are many barriers to protecting nature, such as the focus on short-term profits versus long-term ecological cycles. In addition, there is a lack of mandatory disclosure and accountability for environmental impacts, inadequate data, metrics, and capacity within the business community, as well as the failure to integrate Indigenous and local knowledge in biodiversity protection.

The creation of an enabling environment needs coordinated action policy and legal frameworks where governments should integrate biodiversity into all trade and sectoral policies. Besides, there is a need to redirect the USD 7.3 trillion in harmful flows using taxes, green bonds, and sustainability-linked loans to reward positive action.

Businesses must engage with Indigenous Peoples and local communities with Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC), while access to and sharing of location-specific data on business activities and biodiversity should be improved.  Leverage technology such as remote sensing and artificial intelligence for better monitoring and traceability across business supply chains.

Measure It to Manage It

Another key finding of the report is that business could improve the measurement and management of its impacts and dependencies on nature through appropriate engagement with science and Indigenous and local knowledge.

Assessment co-chair Prof. Ximena Rueda noted that data and knowledge are often siloed, as scientific literature was not written for businesses. Besides, a lack of translation and attention to the needs of business has slowed uptake of scientific findings.

“Among business there is also often limited understanding and recognition of Indigenous Peoples and local communities as stewards of biodiversity and, therefore, holders of knowledge on its conservation, restoration and sustainable use,” said Rueda in a statement.

Industrial development threatens 60 percent of Indigenous lands around the world, and a quarter of all Indigenous territories are under high pressure from resource exploitation. However, Indigenous Peoples and local communities often find themselves inadequately represented in business research and decision-making, said the report.

Commenting on the report, Astrid Schomaker, Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), noted that while all businesses depend on nature, some were more exposed to risks stemming from resource depletion and environmental degradation. She said companies need a deeper understanding of the breadth of their dependencies and impacts on biodiversity to act better.

“In too many boardrooms and offices around the world, there is still a dearth of awareness of biodiversity protection as a business investment,” said Schomaker in a statement. “Too often, public policy still incentivises behaviour that drives biodiversity loss.”

While Alexander De Croo, Administrator, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), said too often biodiversity is an invisible and expendable asset on a balance sheet of global companies, but that was changing.

“Awareness is now accelerating of the risks to development if biodiversity fails—and of the economic opportunities and future prosperity that emerge where it thrives,” De Croo said.

The report underscored that we cannot business-as-usual our way out of the biodiversity crisis. Governments need to stop incentivising the destruction of biodiversity and start rewarding environmental stewardship. Besides, business leaders should now integrate natural capital accounting into their business strategy to disclose their environmental footprint while contributing to a positive global economy.

The evidence is clear: our economic prosperity is inextricably linked to nature’s health, and we are severing that vital link at our peril.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');   Related Articles

• Support Science in Halting Global Biodiversity Crisis—King Charles
• Explainer: Why Nature Is Everyone’s Business

Written by Sebastian Clapp

Facts and figures

The EU’s defence industry is at a pivotal moment, shaped by Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the United States’ shifting priorities, and a renewed drive for strategic autonomy. After years of underinvestment and persistent fragmentation, the EU is now seeking to rebuild military capability and strengthen its defence industrial base. The European defence industry comprises a number of large prime contractors, mid-caps and a large number of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). According to Aerospace, Security and Defence Industries Association of Europe (ASD) data, and the author’s calculations for the EU-27, the EU-based defence industry’s turnover is estimated at around €148 billion in 2024, an increase of more than 60 % since 2021 in nominal terms. Exports amounted to roughly €48 billion in 2024 and direct employment in the EU defence industry amounted to around 500 000 people.

Table 1 – Top EU defence companies by revenue

CompanyCountryRevenue*Global rankingThalesFrance15 900#10LeonardoItaly13 822#13AirbusEuropean12 705#14RheinmetallGerman8 245#18SaabSweden5 542#26MBDAEuropean5 305#27SafranFrance5 198#29Naval GroupFrance4 716#33

Source: DefenseNews, 2024. *Revenue from defence in US$ million (2024).

Table 2 – EU defence industry revenue, 2021-2024

Source: ASD data, 2025 and author’s calculations.

The EU’s defence industry remains largely concentrated in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Sweden. However, a report shows that prime producers of the 46 most critical defence items are located across 23 Member States. Thales of France ranked as the largest defence company in the EU by defence revenue in 2024, followed by Italy’s Leonardo. That year, 20 companies headquartered in the EU featured among the world’s top 100 defence firms, including five based in France and four in Germany, together generating defence revenues of approximately US$112 billion, or about €104 billion. By contrast, 48 of the top 100 defence companies were based in the United States, accounting for roughly US$334 billion in defence revenue. Lockheed Martin alone, the leading global defence firm, reported defence revenues of US$68.39 billion. Five of the top 100 were based in China, together accounting for US$355 billion in revenue. The ownership structure of Europe’s leading defence firms underscores the strategic character of the sector.
In many instances, national authorities maintain blocking or controlling shares, which helps safeguard alignment with national priorities and allows for direct public oversight. Across continental Europe, ownership is commonly concentrated either within the state or among family-controlled enterprises. Prominent examples include Dassault (almost 70 % of shares held by the Dassault family’s Groupe Industriel Marcel Dassault), Naval Group (over 60 % of shares are held by the French state), Fincantieri (70 % of shares held by the state-owned Italian sovereign wealth fund, CDP Equity S.p.A.), and Liebherr Group (entirely owned by the Liebherr family). State participation can narrow the scope for cross-border cooperation and industrial consolidation. While mergers between defence firms may deliver economic benefits through economies of scale, they are often treated as strategically sensitive due to their implications for national security and sovereignty. Family-owned firms similarly pursue nationally anchored corporate strategies, reducing their openness to deeper EU-level integration. Golden power rules and the veto capacity of dominant family shareholders further reinforce this structural rigidity. Researchers found that the combined effect is a European defence industrial base that remains fragmented and less competitive than more consolidated markets.

What does the European defence industry produce?

The European defence industry produces a broad range of military equipment and technologies and therefore provides an extensive industrial offering. Its production spans: military aeronautics, including combat, transport and mission aircraft, and helicopters; land capabilities, such as main battle tanks, armoured vehicles across multiple classes, logistics and tactical transport assets, artillery and ammunition of different calibres, alongside individual combat equipment; naval platforms from submarines to surface combatants; space-related defence capabilities; missile systems at both tactical and strategic levels; and defence-specific electronics, information and communication technologies, cyber capabilities and autonomous systems – notably drones, which have experienced a particular boom in production. Despite this breadth, the EU industry does not currently provide domestic solutions in several critical segments, including medium altitude long-endurance unmanned aerial vehicles, tactical ballistic missiles and long-range artillery rockets. These gaps reflect long-term underinvestment and sustained dependence on the United States security guarantee.

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the rapid availability of military equipment became a key priority for EU governments and armed forces. Firms based outside Europe – benefiting either from larger domestic markets as in the United States or from higher baseline levels of defence readiness as in South Korea – were better positioned to maintain higher production capacity and to deliver or pledge substantial quantities of equipment at speed. By contrast, many European manufacturers were limited by long periods of industrial contraction and underinvestment. This context has evolved markedly since the onset of Russia’s full-scale invasion. EU ammunition production capacity, for example, rose from around 300 000 rounds per year in 2022 to an estimated 2 million by the end of 2025, reflecting a pace of industrial expansion that, according to the Financial Times, exceeds peacetime growth rates by a factor of three.

EU and Member States’ support for the defence industry

EU Member States’ defence expenditure has risen sharply since 2021, reflecting a sustained shift towards higher investment in defence. Defence spending reached an estimated €381 billion in 2025, representing a rise of almost 63 % compared to 2020. Expenditure grew from 1.6 % of GDP in 2023 to 1.9 % in 2024 and is expected to reach approximately 2.1 % in 2025. Growth has been driven primarily by investment, which approached €130 billion in 2025. Investment accounted for 31 % of total defence expenditure in 2024, with equipment procurement dominating and exceeding €88 billion. Defence research and development spending also expanded significantly, reaching €13 billion in 2024 and a projected €17 billion in 2025. The EU has introduced several measures to complement and amplify national efforts. These include financial support instruments such as the SAFE loan facility, budgetary flexibility via the national escape clause, and cooperation through the European Peace Facility. In parallel, EU budget instruments such as the European Defence Fund, military mobility funding, the Act in Support of Ammunition Production (ASAP), the European Defence Industry Reinforcement through Common Procurement Act (EDIRPA) and the European defence industry programme (EDIP) aim to reduce fragmentation and strengthen the competitiveness of Europe’s defence industrial base.

European Parliament position

Parliament has consistently called for an increase in defence spending and for boosting the EU defence industry. Members welcome rising national defence spending but urge deeper European cooperation to prevent market fragmentation and call for expanded industrial output and greater interoperability.

Read this ‘at a glance’ note on ‘European defence industry‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.