Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

The 2023 Tax Expenditures Report, published by the Ministry of Finance and National Planning, estimates that Zambia forfeited revenue equivalent to 1.5 percent of GDP, representing 7.5 percent of total taxes and levies collected in the year. It is important to note that this figure excludes Value Added Tax (VAT)-related tax expenditures, which, according to the Global Tax Expenditures Database (GTED), are a substantial source of revenue forgone. Tax expenditures in Zambia are delivered through a variety of mechanisms, including reduced rates, exemptions, and suspensions, applied across both domestic and trade-based taxes.
Transparency: Zambia published its first tax expenditure report, covering fiscal years 2022 and 2023, in December 2024, a milestone toward improving fiscal transparency. To build on this progress, while reinforcing the legal requirement for timely disclosure under the Public Finance Management Act of 2018, Zambia should institutionalise mandatory annual reporting on the cost and effectiveness of tax expenditures, thereby strengthening continuity and public accountability and ensuring this is not a once-off effort.
Complex landscape: Over the years, Zambia has adopted a range of tax incentives through rate adjustments, exemptions, and deferrals—to encourage investment, promote industrial growth, and stimulate trade. These policy tools reflect the government’s broader commitment to using the tax system as a lever for achieving inclusive and sustainable development. However, while these measures serve noble goals, they also add complexity by introducing different rates, exemptions, and rules that make the system harder for taxpayers to navigate.
Evaluation challenges: The absence of a comprehensive evaluation framework requiring regular assessments limits systematic review of TEs. With only one tax expenditure report produced to date, limited historical data also restricts possible evaluations of the economic and fiscal impact of tax incentives. This undermines the ability to determine whether current tax expenditures are achieving their intended policy objectives.
Fiscal sustainability: The fiscal cost of tax expenditures, coupled with Zambia’s mounting debt obligations, pose risks to fiscal sustainability. Without careful monitoring and rationalisation, tax expenditures could erode the domestic revenue base, compromising the country’s ability to meet its development goals.
Policy recommendations:
• Mandate and institutionalise the annual publication of a comprehensive Tax Expenditure Report as part of the National Budget process to support evidence-based policy and fiscal accountability.
• Publish comprehensive reports by December 31 each year, in time to inform the national budget.
• Include detailed disclosures on the scope, legal basis, objectives, and outcomes of each tax expenditure to enable performance evaluation and policy refinement.
• Establish an inter-agency working group (including Zambia Revenue Authority (ZRA), MoFNP, and Zambia Development Agency (ZDA)) to coordinate the identification, recording, and review of TEs.
• Subject major tax expenditure provisions to periodic cost-benefit analysis to assess their effectiveness and fiscal trade-offs.

The 2023 Tax Expenditures Report, published by the Ministry of Finance and National Planning, estimates that Zambia forfeited revenue equivalent to 1.5 percent of GDP, representing 7.5 percent of total taxes and levies collected in the year. It is important to note that this figure excludes Value Added Tax (VAT)-related tax expenditures, which, according to the Global Tax Expenditures Database (GTED), are a substantial source of revenue forgone. Tax expenditures in Zambia are delivered through a variety of mechanisms, including reduced rates, exemptions, and suspensions, applied across both domestic and trade-based taxes.
Transparency: Zambia published its first tax expenditure report, covering fiscal years 2022 and 2023, in December 2024, a milestone toward improving fiscal transparency. To build on this progress, while reinforcing the legal requirement for timely disclosure under the Public Finance Management Act of 2018, Zambia should institutionalise mandatory annual reporting on the cost and effectiveness of tax expenditures, thereby strengthening continuity and public accountability and ensuring this is not a once-off effort.
Complex landscape: Over the years, Zambia has adopted a range of tax incentives through rate adjustments, exemptions, and deferrals—to encourage investment, promote industrial growth, and stimulate trade. These policy tools reflect the government’s broader commitment to using the tax system as a lever for achieving inclusive and sustainable development. However, while these measures serve noble goals, they also add complexity by introducing different rates, exemptions, and rules that make the system harder for taxpayers to navigate.
Evaluation challenges: The absence of a comprehensive evaluation framework requiring regular assessments limits systematic review of TEs. With only one tax expenditure report produced to date, limited historical data also restricts possible evaluations of the economic and fiscal impact of tax incentives. This undermines the ability to determine whether current tax expenditures are achieving their intended policy objectives.
Fiscal sustainability: The fiscal cost of tax expenditures, coupled with Zambia’s mounting debt obligations, pose risks to fiscal sustainability. Without careful monitoring and rationalisation, tax expenditures could erode the domestic revenue base, compromising the country’s ability to meet its development goals.
Policy recommendations:
• Mandate and institutionalise the annual publication of a comprehensive Tax Expenditure Report as part of the National Budget process to support evidence-based policy and fiscal accountability.
• Publish comprehensive reports by December 31 each year, in time to inform the national budget.
• Include detailed disclosures on the scope, legal basis, objectives, and outcomes of each tax expenditure to enable performance evaluation and policy refinement.
• Establish an inter-agency working group (including Zambia Revenue Authority (ZRA), MoFNP, and Zambia Development Agency (ZDA)) to coordinate the identification, recording, and review of TEs.
• Subject major tax expenditure provisions to periodic cost-benefit analysis to assess their effectiveness and fiscal trade-offs.

BMZ (Germany’s Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development or Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung) is consulting on how to implement a material reduction in its Official Development Assistance (ODA) budget. In this paper, we review where remaining funds would have the greatest impact, and propose a series of reforms accordingly. We recommend:

Focussed thematic allocation: Germany’s development projects have been substantially diluted over the last decade. We find that BMZ projects have progressively targeted a broader range of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The number of projects that target more than four goals, for example has risen almost nine-fold from 72 to over 600 in the last ten years. Evidence suggests that less complex measures would have been more efficient and effective.We suggest focussing on 4–5 SDGs that align with the Government’s priorities and BMZ’s expertise render overall ODA allocation more effective.

Strategic country allocations: BMZ currently funds projects in a 110 of the 141 ODA-eligible countries in total. It seems clear this will need to be reduced. Providing development finance makes the biggest difference to those in greatest need, so we undertake an analysis to ascertain the level of ODA that each of these recipients receives from other countries, expressed in terms of ODA per person in extreme poverty. We identify 31 BMZ partner countries that are under-prioritised—of which 13 are significantly under-prioritised. In contrast, we find 48 countries that are over-prioritised by other providers. We urge BMZ to fully protect budgets in the 31 under-prioritised countries, and concentrate reductions in the 48 over-prioritised. This enhances the impact of BMZ funding overall and enables German funding to represent a larger and more influential share of recipients’ economies.

Sharpening instruments: Over the last five years, funding for the “Multilateral and European development cooperation” federal budget instrument has been cut by 34 percent, while there has been 20 percent cuts in bilateral efforts. Germany is below average in the share of its international finance that is allocated multilaterally. We argue this split should be reversed. First, multilateral organisations are assessed as highly effective by independent assessments, and surveys of the German public also suggest they garner a high level of trust. But there is an additional compelling geopolitical case for allocating funding multilaterally. Following the abrupt withdrawal of the United States from a number of organisations, the international system is more vulnerable than ever. It is difficult envisage a future where Germany is secure and prosperous if the multilateral system fails to endure. We urge the German government to shield its multilateral contributions in from these cuts, refocus earmarked multilateral spend towards core funding, and increase its core multilateral share to at least 40 percent in the next two years. Regarding the remaining bilateral share, we propose that Germany reconsider its current approach to the volume and tendering of technical assistance.

BMZ (Germany’s Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development or Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung) is consulting on how to implement a material reduction in its Official Development Assistance (ODA) budget. In this paper, we review where remaining funds would have the greatest impact, and propose a series of reforms accordingly. We recommend:

Focussed thematic allocation: Germany’s development projects have been substantially diluted over the last decade. We find that BMZ projects have progressively targeted a broader range of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The number of projects that target more than four goals, for example has risen almost nine-fold from 72 to over 600 in the last ten years. Evidence suggests that less complex measures would have been more efficient and effective.We suggest focussing on 4–5 SDGs that align with the Government’s priorities and BMZ’s expertise render overall ODA allocation more effective.

Strategic country allocations: BMZ currently funds projects in a 110 of the 141 ODA-eligible countries in total. It seems clear this will need to be reduced. Providing development finance makes the biggest difference to those in greatest need, so we undertake an analysis to ascertain the level of ODA that each of these recipients receives from other countries, expressed in terms of ODA per person in extreme poverty. We identify 31 BMZ partner countries that are under-prioritised—of which 13 are significantly under-prioritised. In contrast, we find 48 countries that are over-prioritised by other providers. We urge BMZ to fully protect budgets in the 31 under-prioritised countries, and concentrate reductions in the 48 over-prioritised. This enhances the impact of BMZ funding overall and enables German funding to represent a larger and more influential share of recipients’ economies.

Sharpening instruments: Over the last five years, funding for the “Multilateral and European development cooperation” federal budget instrument has been cut by 34 percent, while there has been 20 percent cuts in bilateral efforts. Germany is below average in the share of its international finance that is allocated multilaterally. We argue this split should be reversed. First, multilateral organisations are assessed as highly effective by independent assessments, and surveys of the German public also suggest they garner a high level of trust. But there is an additional compelling geopolitical case for allocating funding multilaterally. Following the abrupt withdrawal of the United States from a number of organisations, the international system is more vulnerable than ever. It is difficult envisage a future where Germany is secure and prosperous if the multilateral system fails to endure. We urge the German government to shield its multilateral contributions in from these cuts, refocus earmarked multilateral spend towards core funding, and increase its core multilateral share to at least 40 percent in the next two years. Regarding the remaining bilateral share, we propose that Germany reconsider its current approach to the volume and tendering of technical assistance.

BMZ (Germany’s Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development or Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung) is consulting on how to implement a material reduction in its Official Development Assistance (ODA) budget. In this paper, we review where remaining funds would have the greatest impact, and propose a series of reforms accordingly. We recommend:

Focussed thematic allocation: Germany’s development projects have been substantially diluted over the last decade. We find that BMZ projects have progressively targeted a broader range of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The number of projects that target more than four goals, for example has risen almost nine-fold from 72 to over 600 in the last ten years. Evidence suggests that less complex measures would have been more efficient and effective.We suggest focussing on 4–5 SDGs that align with the Government’s priorities and BMZ’s expertise render overall ODA allocation more effective.

Strategic country allocations: BMZ currently funds projects in a 110 of the 141 ODA-eligible countries in total. It seems clear this will need to be reduced. Providing development finance makes the biggest difference to those in greatest need, so we undertake an analysis to ascertain the level of ODA that each of these recipients receives from other countries, expressed in terms of ODA per person in extreme poverty. We identify 31 BMZ partner countries that are under-prioritised—of which 13 are significantly under-prioritised. In contrast, we find 48 countries that are over-prioritised by other providers. We urge BMZ to fully protect budgets in the 31 under-prioritised countries, and concentrate reductions in the 48 over-prioritised. This enhances the impact of BMZ funding overall and enables German funding to represent a larger and more influential share of recipients’ economies.

Sharpening instruments: Over the last five years, funding for the “Multilateral and European development cooperation” federal budget instrument has been cut by 34 percent, while there has been 20 percent cuts in bilateral efforts. Germany is below average in the share of its international finance that is allocated multilaterally. We argue this split should be reversed. First, multilateral organisations are assessed as highly effective by independent assessments, and surveys of the German public also suggest they garner a high level of trust. But there is an additional compelling geopolitical case for allocating funding multilaterally. Following the abrupt withdrawal of the United States from a number of organisations, the international system is more vulnerable than ever. It is difficult envisage a future where Germany is secure and prosperous if the multilateral system fails to endure. We urge the German government to shield its multilateral contributions in from these cuts, refocus earmarked multilateral spend towards core funding, and increase its core multilateral share to at least 40 percent in the next two years. Regarding the remaining bilateral share, we propose that Germany reconsider its current approach to the volume and tendering of technical assistance.

Deutsche Wirtschaft nach zwei Rezessionsjahren in diesem Jahr mit kleinem Wachstum von 0,2 Prozent – Dank fiskalpolitischer Impulse geht es 2026 und 2027 deutlich stärker aufwärts, um 1,3 und 1,6 Prozent – Weltwirtschaft trotz US-Zollpolitik robuster als erwartet Die deutsche Wirtschaft nimmt einen ...

Event Video 
Photos

jQuery(document).ready(function($){$("#isloaderfor-yhjmxo").fadeOut(300, function () { $(".pagwrap-yhjmxo").fadeIn(300);});});

IPI and the Permanent Mission of Latvia to the United Nations cohosted a public discussion on Navigating Frontline Challenges for the use of Technology in UN Peace Operations on December 11th.

The event examined how UN peace operations should navigate the changing technology landscape to maximize potential benefits for efficiency and effectiveness, address changing threats posed by the use of technology by conflict parties, and mitigate the risks and potential harms presented by the introduction of new technologies into peacekeeping environments. As the Secretariat’s ongoing review of the future of all forms of UN peace operations examines opportunities for new mission modalities and formats, this event considered the potential role of new technologies across various types of mission configurations. This could include, for example, the appropriate balance of remote sensing technologies and on-the-ground presence in a future ceasefire-monitoring mission. Panelists also discussed the political, operational, and ethical implications of new peacekeeping technologies within the current geopolitical and financial environment and proposed opportunities to adapt the UN’s technology and innovation agenda in light of these challenges.

Opening Remarks:
H.E. Sanita Pavļuta-Deslandes, Permanent Representative of Latvia to the United Nations

Speakers:
Remi Clavet, Chief of Joint Mission Analysis Center (JMAC), UN Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) (Virtual)
Dirk Druet, Non-Resident Fellow, International Peace Institute
Major Modris Kairišs, Head of Autonomous Systems Competence Center, National Armed Forces of Latvia (Virtual)
Barbara Nieuwenhuys, Digital Transformation Team, UN Department of Peace Operations (DPO)

Closing Remarks:
H.E. Usman Iqbal Jadoon, Deputy Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the United Nations (Virtual)

Moderator:
Lauren McGowan, Policy Analyst, International Peace Institute

The post Navigating Frontline Challenges for the Use of Technology in UN Peace Operations appeared first on International Peace Institute.

Revised version, December 2025

Tax expenditures (TEs) are benefits granted through the tax system that lower government revenue and the tax liability of beneficiaries. Governments worldwide use TEs to pursue different policy goals such as attracting investment, boosting innovation and mitigating inequality. At the same time, TEs are costly: according to the Global Tax Expenditures Database (GTED), the worldwide average over the 1990-2023 period is 3.7 percent of GDP and 23.0 percent of tax revenue (Redonda et al., 2025). When ill designed, they can be ineffective in reaching their stated goals. They can also be highly distortive and trigger negative externalities. Yet, despite the fact that TEs have similar effects on public budgets as direct spending programmes, the lack of transparency in the TE field is striking, as only 116 out of 218 jurisdictions have reported on TEs at least once since 1990.1 In addition, the quality, regularity and scope of such reports are highly heterogeneous and, in many cases, do not allow to engage in meaningful discussions on the effectiveness and efficiency of TEs. The Global Tax Expenditures Transparency Index (GTETI) is the first comparative assessment of TE reporting covering jurisdictions worldwide. It provides a systematic framework to rank jurisdictions according to the regularity, quality and scope of their TE reports, and seeks to increase transparency and accountability in the TE field. Note that countries are not scored, ranked or compared on the size of revenue forgone reported, nor on the quality of their TE policy as such. This new version of the Companion Paper introduces the GTETI, outlines the updates made to the index since December 2024, and provides an in-depth explanation of its five dimensions and 25 indicators. It also discusses the rationale, scope, methodology, and assumptions underpinning the GTETI assessment process. The Companion Paper explains the limitations and issues users should bear in mind when consulting the index, which is publicly available free of charge on the Tax Expenditures Lab website,  www.taxexpenditures.org.

Revised version, December 2025

Tax expenditures (TEs) are benefits granted through the tax system that lower government revenue and the tax liability of beneficiaries. Governments worldwide use TEs to pursue different policy goals such as attracting investment, boosting innovation and mitigating inequality. At the same time, TEs are costly: according to the Global Tax Expenditures Database (GTED), the worldwide average over the 1990-2023 period is 3.7 percent of GDP and 23.0 percent of tax revenue (Redonda et al., 2025). When ill designed, they can be ineffective in reaching their stated goals. They can also be highly distortive and trigger negative externalities. Yet, despite the fact that TEs have similar effects on public budgets as direct spending programmes, the lack of transparency in the TE field is striking, as only 116 out of 218 jurisdictions have reported on TEs at least once since 1990.1 In addition, the quality, regularity and scope of such reports are highly heterogeneous and, in many cases, do not allow to engage in meaningful discussions on the effectiveness and efficiency of TEs. The Global Tax Expenditures Transparency Index (GTETI) is the first comparative assessment of TE reporting covering jurisdictions worldwide. It provides a systematic framework to rank jurisdictions according to the regularity, quality and scope of their TE reports, and seeks to increase transparency and accountability in the TE field. Note that countries are not scored, ranked or compared on the size of revenue forgone reported, nor on the quality of their TE policy as such. This new version of the Companion Paper introduces the GTETI, outlines the updates made to the index since December 2024, and provides an in-depth explanation of its five dimensions and 25 indicators. It also discusses the rationale, scope, methodology, and assumptions underpinning the GTETI assessment process. The Companion Paper explains the limitations and issues users should bear in mind when consulting the index, which is publicly available free of charge on the Tax Expenditures Lab website,  www.taxexpenditures.org.

Revised version, December 2025

Tax expenditures (TEs) are benefits granted through the tax system that lower government revenue and the tax liability of beneficiaries. Governments worldwide use TEs to pursue different policy goals such as attracting investment, boosting innovation and mitigating inequality. At the same time, TEs are costly: according to the Global Tax Expenditures Database (GTED), the worldwide average over the 1990-2023 period is 3.7 percent of GDP and 23.0 percent of tax revenue (Redonda et al., 2025). When ill designed, they can be ineffective in reaching their stated goals. They can also be highly distortive and trigger negative externalities. Yet, despite the fact that TEs have similar effects on public budgets as direct spending programmes, the lack of transparency in the TE field is striking, as only 116 out of 218 jurisdictions have reported on TEs at least once since 1990.1 In addition, the quality, regularity and scope of such reports are highly heterogeneous and, in many cases, do not allow to engage in meaningful discussions on the effectiveness and efficiency of TEs. The Global Tax Expenditures Transparency Index (GTETI) is the first comparative assessment of TE reporting covering jurisdictions worldwide. It provides a systematic framework to rank jurisdictions according to the regularity, quality and scope of their TE reports, and seeks to increase transparency and accountability in the TE field. Note that countries are not scored, ranked or compared on the size of revenue forgone reported, nor on the quality of their TE policy as such. This new version of the Companion Paper introduces the GTETI, outlines the updates made to the index since December 2024, and provides an in-depth explanation of its five dimensions and 25 indicators. It also discusses the rationale, scope, methodology, and assumptions underpinning the GTETI assessment process. The Companion Paper explains the limitations and issues users should bear in mind when consulting the index, which is publicly available free of charge on the Tax Expenditures Lab website,  www.taxexpenditures.org.

• The European Parliament that emerged after the June 2024 elections is characterized by a high level of diversity and fragmentation.
• More than 200 national and transnational parties are represented, with more than one third of the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) belonging to very small political parties, with one to three representatives, or have no party affiliation. Ten national parties gather 204 MEPs, dominating political interactions in the EP environment.
• The observed fragmentation enhances diversity and pluralism but also undermines the formation of stable political and ideological networks and coalitions.
• The EPP, the S&D, and Renew, together with the Greens at some (small) distance, form the cluster of the ‘governing majority’. ESN and PfE are located far away from this first cluster. The European Left and the ECR have an intermediate position, showing thematic flexibility and an occasional, selective ad hoc convergence with either cluster in different votes.
• S&D is the most cohesive political group in the EP, followed by the EPP and the RENEW group that also show a high level of cohesion. Large deviations in the voting patterns of their constituent members exist in the ECR and PfE groups.
• Combining our findings with the ones of the Chapel Hill Expert Survey (CHES) on the ideological positions of the EP political groups, we find that the groups’ positions on European integration explain voting alignment better than ideology does. This reinforces a key literature insight that European integration has become perhaps the most influential cleavage in the EP politics — one that increasingly structures legislative behaviour beyond the traditional Left–Right divide.

Read here in pdf the Working paper by Antonis Papakostas, former EU official; Research Associate, ELIAMEP; Spyros Blavoukos, Professor, Athens University of Economics and Business; Senior Research Fellow and Head of the ‘Ariane Condellis’ European Program, ELIAMEP and Georgios Matsoukas, Research Assistant, ELIAMEP.

 

Das DIW Berlin war am 8. Dezember 2025 als Mitveranstalter an der von der Begleitforschung BEWEGT organisierten Tagung zur Wärmewende am EUREF-Campus beteiligt. Die Tagung brachte zahlreiche Beiträge aus Politik- und Sozialwissenschaften zusammen und zeigte deutlich, wie vielfältig die ...

India’s growing footprint in the Indian Ocean is reshaping the partnership with Mauritius. This policy brief explores how Mauritius can balance deepening ties with India while safeguarding strategic autonomy amid rising regional competition.

India’s growing footprint in the Indian Ocean is reshaping the partnership with Mauritius. This policy brief explores how Mauritius can balance deepening ties with India while safeguarding strategic autonomy amid rising regional competition.

India’s growing footprint in the Indian Ocean is reshaping the partnership with Mauritius. This policy brief explores how Mauritius can balance deepening ties with India while safeguarding strategic autonomy amid rising regional competition.

The Transatlantic Periscope is an interactive, multimedia tool that brings together expert commentary, high-quality media coverage, official policy documents, quantitative data, social media posts, and gray literature. It will provide on a monthly basis a summary of the most important news concerning the Greek-US relations, as reflected in the media. Below you will find an overview for October 2025.

On October 2, Kimberly Guilfoyle begun her first official contacts as the new U.S. Ambassador to Greece. The Ambassador visited her Greek counterpart in Washington, D.C., Ambassador Katerina Nasika. According to SKAI, Guilfoyle outlined her plans for Greece, while the Greek Ambassador appeared satisfied with the meeting.

Greece participated in the Association of the United States Army (AUSA) Annual Meeting & Exposition, with a dedicated Hellenic Pavillion, under the auspices of Enterprise Greece and the Hellenic Ministry of National Defense, in collaboration with the American Hellenic Chamber of Commerce. As part of the AUSA Exposition, a high-level event entitled “Investing in Europe’s Defense Future: Opportunities and Innovation in Greece” was held on October 14. The event brought together industry leaders, defense experts, and stakeholders to explore Europe’s evolving defense landscape, with particular emphasis on Greece’s pivotal role in strengthening its defense capabilities. Distinguished speakers, including senior officials from the Hellenic Ministry of National Defense and representatives from U.S. and Greek defense industries, engaged in in-depth discussions on the shared challenges facing European and U.S. defense sectors, highlighting opportunities for enhanced understanding and cooperation.

The Chief of the Hellenic Navy, Vice Admiral Dimitrios Eleftherios Kataras, participated in the commemorative events marking the 250th anniversary of the United States Navy in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, from 7 to 13 October 2025, where he held meetings with senior U.S. officers, following an invitation from his counterpart, Admiral Daryl Caudle, Chief of Naval Operations of the United States. On October 16, Minister of National Defence of Greece, Nikos Dendias, visited the U.S. Naval War College in Rhode Island. During his visit, the Minister of Defense held discussions with the President, Rear Admiral Darryl Walker, and senior officials of the U.S. Navy.

Finance Minister Kyriakos Pierrakakis met U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on the sidelines of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) meetings on October 17, for the second time in six months. During the meeting they reaffirmed the relationship of trust and strategic cooperation between Greece and the United States. Secretary Bessent and Minister Pierrakakis also stressed the need for cooperation on national security issues. Pierrakakis presented Greece’s progress in fiscal stability and investment attraction, and underlined the need to further deepen the economic partnership between Greece and the United States, particularly in the fields of technological innovation and energy infrastructure.

More at: https://transatlanticperiscope.org/relationship/GR#

Council agrees on a mandate to begin negotiations with the European Parliament on new rules for plant reproductive material.

Interview mit Politikwissenschaftler Felix Heiduk