Amsterdam2015 - Preparation Kit

WORD OF WELCOME !

Dear delegates of Amsterdam2015, This preparation kit has one primary aim: To spark your interest. Ideally, you will have a superficial look at everything in this kit, while choosing one thing to have a more indepth look at. Be it a specific conflict in your topic, the exact workings of an intriguing institution relevant to it, or pondering upon how your three topics relate to the EU’s role in the world. What gets you thinking? What would you change? Trust that the things you have found to be important are important. The centerpiece of this session is your opinions.

The 3rd International Forum of EYP the Netherlands includes some new programme elements that are of relevance to you during the preparation period, and the session itself. These are demanding to everyone involved in this event. We know it is expecting more from you than usual, but please bear with us: Read the three topic overviews you have been assigned to, be responsive to your chairs tasks. Get a rough idea on how all of this works in the EU’s institutions. All the while, stay curious, and do linger on what interests you most.

The Chairs team has worked passionately on making this as accessible as possible to you, and will continue to do so in the future. I am certain that you will use the cooperative approach we have taken to this session as an incentive to go all the way with our work. As Hannah Arendt wrote: “The fact that man is capable of action means that the unexpected can be expected from him, that he is able to perform what is infinitely improbable.” We want you to give it a shot.

The Chairs team is delighted to embark upon this session as a joint venture with all of you, and cannot wait to get to know you in person.

All my best, !

Franzi President of Amsterdam2015

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS !

1. Committee Topics and Explanatory Paragraphs……………………………………4 2. Academic Concept Explained………………………………………………………9 3. Europe in the world – The session’s theme………………………………………..11 4. Doing research on EU issues………………………………………………………12 5. Topic Overviews…………………………………………………………………..13 a. Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development…………………………14 b. Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection…………………...21 c. Committee on International Trade I………………………………………….28 d. Committee on International Trade II…………………………………………35 e. Committee on Foreign Affairs..……………………………………………...43 f. Committee on Industry, Research and Energy……………………………….50 g. Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs I (LIBE I)………...61 h. Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs II (LIBE II)………67 i. Committee on Security and Defence I……………………………………….74 j. Committee on Security and Defence II. ……………………………………..83

4

Committee Topics and Explanatory Paragraphs !

!!

Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET) Europe in the world: As EU Member States have failed to act jointly in foreign conflicts at its borders, how should an effective reform of decision-making procedures be implemented within the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP)?

Until the mid-2000, the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) has produced significant foreign policy in a number of priority areas such as Kosovo, Somalia, the Western Balkans and Iran. However, during the last decade, with policy expansion becoming less common, and in many cases such Libya, Syria and most recently, Russia, the CFSP has proven to be ineffective, especially when it comes to the use of military forces.

Moreover, these cases have revealed the internal disagreement between pro-interventionist Member States and those who are reluctant to respond with military means.

Nevertheless, the EU has become the world’s main soft-power, and made great use of its diplomatic means, however a policy must often go beyond routine diplomatic means and have an operational aspect in order to make a difference on the ground. With unanimity as the main decision-making procedure, it is easy for Member States to hinder any further integration and cooperation. The Lisbon Treaty introduced the role of High Representative to address the lack of a coherent foreign policy voice for Europe and established the CSDP to respond with more robust answers on security issues. However, any tangible results have failed to take effect. 5 From a tabula rasa perspective, the overall task will be to redesign the CFSP and therefore address the following questions: to what extent should the EU deal with CFSP, and how, as a soft or hard-power? Is unanimity still the most preferred decision-making procedure, and if not, how should the procedure look like? Lastly, in which third organisations should the EU get the competence to represent its Member States in the area of CFSP?

Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI) Innovations to feed the world: With global demand for agricultural products such as food, feed and fuel rising, how should the EU expand agricultural knowledge and innovation systems around the world?

By 2050, the world’s population is estimated to reach 9 billion people. These 9 billion people can live without the latest iPhone, or the newest tablet, and even without the most fashionable winter coat, but they simply cannot live without food. With the Earth’s natural resources dwindling, straining under the sheer number of people relying on them, and with climate change constantly accelerating, our current methods for feeding the world are simply not sustainable. The EU has the Common Agricultural Policy in place to ensure agricultural innovation and food security and safety within the Union, but this is no longer enough. Global demand by 2050 means that agricultural output will have to increase by 70% across the world. It is no longer enough to reply on domestic policies. There now has

5

to be a united international approach to tackle the issues of agricultural innovation and sustainability in order to ensure the survival of the human race.

Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) Risk or opportunity: With sharing-economy enterprises such as Uber and Airbnb becoming more popular and common, what regulatury framework best allows the EU and its Member States to prevent new challenges of circumvention of competition, taxation and labour laws whilst profiting from the innovative potential and high accessibility of the sharing-economy?

Sharing-economy businesses provide platforms where people can offer and buy goods or services. It’s all about renting, not owning- be it a car, kitchen utensils, camping equipment or your own home. Asset owners use these platforms to capitalise the unused capacity of things they already have, and consumers rent from their peers rather than rent or buy from a company.

Sharing-economy business models gain popularity day by day as they appear very attractive to consumers for various reasons. The possibilities of earning (additional) money easier than before or benefiting from lower prices are amongst the top causes. However, there is barely any specific regulation for the sharing-economy and it can be highly doubted whether existing legislation meets the needs of these innovative companies. If there are regulations, they highly differ from Member State to Member State. Many companies have been accused of circumventing tax laws, labour laws, competition laws and not meeting security standards. Uber, for instance, had a lot of lawsuits already.

The amount of existing regulations for classic enterprises shows that protection for these enterprises are necessary; but what about innovative sharing-economy enterprises? What about people using these platforms like providers and consumers? Is any kind of regulation needed to ensure certain standards?

Committee on International Trade I (INTA I) Overcoming power imbalances: With Latin America’s growing economies becoming an increasingly profitable market for European exports, how should the EU benefit from mutual trade and political cooperation all the while contributing to the development of human rights and environmental protection in the region?

In the light of the current economic crisis, the EU must find external markets and trade partners to stimulate its recessed economy. With Latin America having a population of roughly 500 million people and some of the world’s most promising emergent countries, political cooperation and free trade agreements (FTAs) between both regions could be mutually advantageous.

On the other hand, Latin America is a politically fragmented region which faces important challenges for development and issues in the protection of human rights. Power imbalances and inequality are not only tangible between EU - Latin America relations, but also throughout all of Central and South America’s geography. Furthermore, environmental protection is also a key priority that can only be achieved through global compromise.

6

It is of vital need to reach profitable trade agreements with external countries and regions.

However, the EU must also seek to honour its obligations in regards to solidarity, cooperation, environmental protection and the respect for human rights. A balance between economic profitability needs and the social responsibility obligations must be found.

Committee on International Trade II (INTA II) Finding equitable health regulations: Uncured illnesses and increasing last- line resistance call for both fuelling pharmaceutical R&D and the promotion of fair access to medicine worldwide. How should the EU promote innovation in the pharmaceutical sector while making existing cures available to those who need them most?

Innovation in the pharmaceutical sector is typically funded by patenting new drugs, and selling them at a high price. This is the current model for financing expensive research and testing of new medicines. However, this model makes new medicines, sometimes lifesaving, inaccessible to poorer populations. Some current measures include pressuring the pharmaceutical industry to make their products more accessible to people in developing countries, and special provisions for medicine in the WTO’s agreement on patents.

However, some question the model itself, saying that it may not be the most successful in developing medicine cost-efficiently, and encouraging research where it is the most needed.

There are two main interconnected questions: how to fund the research of medicines, and how to make medicine more accessible to those in need who may not have financial means.

As a global industry with very high costs and returns, and a large surplus on the EU’s foreign trade balance, there is a lot at stake regarding current legislation on medicine.

Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) Balancing the inherent costs of energy: With the EU’s 2030 framework for climate and energy policies being criticised as unambitious, what steps should the EU take to ensure the transition to a more secure and sustainable energy system while maintaining overall economic competitiveness?

The European Union is leading on energy and climate policies, working towards the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, inclusion of renewables in the energy mix, and energy savings. However, it has become increasingly dependent on energy imports, and there is growing concerns of consumers about the affordability of energy. Whilst having made progress towards the 2020 targets, some argue that the 2030 targets do not take competitiveness and the cost efficiency of the transition towards low carbon sources sufficiently into account. This topic aims to re-evaluate the 2030 targets and come up with practical methods of implementation, whilst taking into account the goals of security of supply and economic competitiveness.

Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs I (LIBE I) Europe as a safe harbour: Given the rising number of those fleeing conflicts worldwide, what coherent direction should the EU’s refugee and asylum policy pursue to account for burden-sharing amongst Member States whilst upholding humanitarian principles?

7

In the Middle East, decades of political instability and war offered a fertile ground for the development of political and religious fundamentalist groups pursuing a range of goals through armed struggle, including ISIS. This jihadist Islamic group that sprung from AlQaeda rapidly became a major actor in regional conflicts and is now increasingly considered a major threat to minorities living in their territory, the neighbouring States and the West. In control of large shares of territory in both Syria and Iraq, the self-established Caliphate strong of an estimated 20’000 to 32’000 fighters aspires to conquer and administer territories currently belonging to neighbouring countries such as Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey like a State under sharia law. Besides kidnapping and murdering citizens of countries such as the USA, UK and France, they have also been found guilty by the UN of mass executions, sex slavery and systematic rape as well as other HR violations during their war waging, causing massive numbers of refugees. Thanks to an impressive, almost business-like organisation, large funding and equally outstanding propaganda skills, they are able to operate efficiently, even outside of the territory they control, and attract a flux of foreign fighters, including from EU countries.

This topic raises the difficult question of if the EU should jointly react to the threat that ISIS represents and if yes, how. In the particular context of the Counter-Terrorism Strategy a solution will build on the four pillars – prevention, protection, pursuit and response – and consider how this Strategy could be expanded in order to secure European interests and contribute to long-term stability in the region.

Committee on Security and Defence II (SEDE II) Unregulated Warfare: With European countries planning to produce drones for military purposes, how can the EU and its allies around the world reap the advantages of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) while safeguarding their compatibility with international law?

Neither international law nor EU law explicitly cover UAVs. Besides the advantages of UAVs their use is subject to case-by-case legal clarification. Worldwide UAVs fall under diverse national domestic policy, and also different positions and views about ethical and humanitarian principles.

The technological development, spending and deployment of drones vary strongly globally.

Most notably, the USA has clearly made heavy use of drones for several years now. This may present a difficulty when the EU tries to share its principles and values in order to reach agreements in international organisations.

Within the EU, the market for war materials is still fragmented and makes (common) development and production harder. Besides the EU’s CSDP framework, there is hardly a dialogue about UAVs on a European level. An additional difficulty in the process is the scattered distribution of competences and responsibilities within the EU. To conclude, while advancing its internal UAV market, the EU must also foster dialogue about military use of UAVs and introduce a legal basis and finally try to share its decisions in international organisations. This must be conducted with consideration of international law and in good cooperation amongst the EUs various stakeholders.

8

ACADEMIC CONCEPT !

This text is to give you some orientation on what will happen in the focus groups you have been assigned to, how the procedure of this session may differ from sessions you have attended previously, and what we hope to reach through these changes in Amsterdam.

The Academic Concept for Amsterdam2015 focuses on a collaborative effort of all session participants to produce innovative, well thought-through and effective results. EYP sessions usually succeed at allowing participants a deep look at one specific topic whilst granting only a superficial insight into other issues discussed at the session. This often leads to debates in General Assembly not living up to the high standards delegates set in Committee Work. Additionally, there is no mechanism that allows for the integration of suggestions to improve resolutions. Amsterdam2015 will try to engage all participants into several topics and allow them to make a meaningful contribution to resolutions other than their own. This will allow for the critical review of other results, a process of developing constructive ideas, improvements and alternatives during the session as well as truly well-considered and opinion-driven debates.

Delegate Preparation: Home committee preparation is based on individualised Action Plans designed by the chairs.

For a period of two weeks, delegates will turn their attention to focus group preparation.

Three tasks will have to be completed, the results of which will be shared with the session.

Interactive Committee Module I: At least twice during the session, delegates will have the time to participate in the work of the committees in their focus groups. The first small meeting will take place after the knowledge-sharing phase of Committee Work. It will allow delegates to get an overview of the knowledge the proposing committee deems most relevant and the conflicts it has identified. Delegates from the cluster will then have the chance to brainstorm problems they would like the committee to solve.

Preparation for General Assembly I: Committee work before the first General Assembly will be concluded with each committee having a draft resolution. On the evening of April 11th, delegates will spend time exchanging first viewpoints on the resolution drafts in a surprise format. They have the chance to submit amendments for the resolutions if they agree with its general idea, but disagree with a particular point, or would like to include additional points. Amendments that have been signed by all members of the proposing committee are friendly amendments, and will not have to be discussed or voted upon in GA. Amendments that are not signed by the proposing committee will need to have a minimum number of supporters to be considered for discussion by the board to ensure they are of relevance.

9

General Assembly I: The aim of this General Assembly is primarily to improve the resolutions by considering the advantages and disadvantages of the most controversial solutions and by giving constructive input to the proposing committee. But it will also be a slightly more accurate representation of the real parliamentary process, because amendments voted upon here will be binding in character (meaning that the proposing committee somehow has to include an idea into their resolution if an amendment on it is passed, and has to exclude ideas for which amendments have failed.)

Preliminary Procedure of GA I: Defence Speech by home committee (2 min.)

Discussion of amendment I (10 min.)

• Reading of amendment I • Defence speech on the amendment by proposer (1,5 min) • Attack speech on the amendment (1,5 min.)

• Open debate on the amendment (5 min) • Closing statement by committee (1 min.)

• Binding vote Discussion of Amendment II (10 min.)

Open debate on remaining resolution (8 min) Revision Day and Interactive Module II: A revision day after the first General Assembly will give delegates the time to revise and perfect their resolutions, and to include amendments. In order to get input on the final version of the resolution the second interactive module will take place.

General Assembly II: The second General Assembly will follow a classic procedure and be focused entirely on debate, rather than being a platform for asking questions. Its aim is for delegates to share opinions and exchange arguments, on which they can base their vote at the end of the debate.

10

SESSION THEME: EUROPE IN THE WORLD !

This text can help you discover how your topic fits into the overall theme, and demonstrates how aspects relevant to your topic are priorities on the agenda of the new European Commission.

Recipient of the Nobel Peace Price, the highest Gross Domestic Product globally, and a political system that is unique to any other organisation in the world: The EU’s position in the world is connected to many positive achievements. At the same time, this world is rapidly changing.

The development of the European financial, economic, and debt crisis has shown how the interconnectedness of global economies makes the EU prone to external shocks. This points to the importance of maintaining competitiveness and focusing on innovation in order to regain economic growth. We see these issues manifested in the European Commission’s work programme for the upcoming years, which includes drawing up a €315 billion Investment Offensive and Creating a European Energy Union.

A shift of global powers lead to an increasingly multi-polar world not only economically, but also politically. Interdependencies and challenges that do not limit themselves to one part of the world require a closer communication and cooperation with global partners than ever before, be it between governments or private actors. The question arises which place the EU should take in this new world order, who it should work with to achieve it, and what issues it should take responsibility for. The new President of the European Commission Juncker has identified being “a stronger global actor” one of its priorities in the Political Guidelines for the next European Commission.

The global community currently finds itself faced with the highest number of armed conflicts worldwide since the end of World War II. Many of these include non-state actors without a territory, which opens the door to new military strategies and warfare.

Consequential humanitarian crises ask whom the EU needs to protect inside and outside its borders. The Commission’s priorities address these issues with plans on ensuring justice and fundamental rights worldwide and thinking about a New Policy on Migration.

The International Forum in Amsterdam will look at Europe’s role in the world from a political, social, economic, moral and legal perspective. Defining this role is a hotly debated topic in politics and academia. There, too, the dimensions our committee topics address play a role. This article by Social Europe is an example of which issue areas are included in such research. The Amsterdam topics should all fit into at least one of these areas.

11

DOING RESEARCH ON EU ISSUES !

This text provides some reliable portals you should use for research beyond the links in your topic overviews. Note that you can also contact your chair to receive an exhaustive guide on the EU.

1. Explained: EU Institutions A first overview: The EU institutions explained by their presidents.

All EU institutions and bodies summarised.

2. Explained: Motivations for EU integration Overview of the history of the EU New Statesman: A summary of EU history for the easily bored.

3. Explained: EU competences and decision-making Video explaining law-making in the EU Legislative powers of the European Parliament Visualisation of the oridnary legislative procedure Division of competences between the EU and Member States.

4. Where to begin further research?

Official Sources: Searching from the European Commission Homepage will give you good summaries, Q&As, and motivations behind legislation and programmes The European Parliament Homepage will help you to check whether your topic is currently debated Europa Newsroom shows you press publications by EU institutions, to get an idea of current plans and discussions.

EU-oriented news sites: Euractiv provides news on EU politics; browsing through policy areas is possible EUObserver provides news on EU politics Euronews provides news on EU politics European Voice provides news on EU politics

12

Think Tanks: Note: You will find well researched, academic content here if you would like to go more deeply into a topic, and think of it from a more theoretical perspective. Often opinions or news articles on these pages can give a more concise insight.

European Policy Centre Carnegie Europe European Council on Foreign Relations Notre Europe – Jacques Delors Institute

13

14

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT (AGRI) !

!

!

Innovations to feed the world: With global demand for agricultural products such as food, feed and fuel rising, how should the EU expand agricultural knowledge and innovation systems around the world?

by Beth Thayne (UK) 1. Video Links The World Economic Forum’s New Vision for Agriculture (NVA) outlines the importance of a globalised approach towards agriculture in the steps towards sustainability.

The Nature Conservancy looks at the state of global agriculture and where to go from here.

2. Key Terms Aquaculture: Farming of aquatic animals and plants e.g. salmon farming.

Bioeconomy: Economic activity relating to biological products and practices.

Subsidies for farmers and the costs of agricultural systems could be considered part of this economy.

Ecosystem: A community of living organisms. Cultivating land for agriculture can damage ecosystems as it can diminish soil conditions for native plants, reduce biodiversity and destroy habitats.

Food Security: The availability of food. Global food security would involve all people having access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to maintain a healthy life.

Food security is founded on three pillars - food availability, food access and food use.

Industrial Farming: High input to a farming system for high produce. Industrial farming involves agricultural companies using lots of energy and other inputs in the form of fuel for machinery and equipment and feed for animals, but reaps high produce. However, industrial practices can impact negatively on the environment due to the sheer input into the system.

Sustainable Farming: A farming system that involves increasing output from lower input. Sustainable farming does not have an as high produce as industrial farming but require less input and has less negative impact on future farming potential through using sustainable methods.

Precision Farming: Managing farming by observing and understanding the needs of the crops or animals and responding to this to improve the input to output ratio.

Precision feeding reduces wasted energy in livestock farming by reducing the caloric deficit.

Urban Agriculture: Farming in a village, town or city. Urban farming allows communities to produce food for themselves and reduces their dependency on imported agricultural produce.

15

Yield Gap: The difference between the potential yield of a crop and the actual yield of the crop in a specific location given the state of technological advance. This gap can be created due to inefficient practice, pests and diseases. Yield Gap can also refer to the differing produce in different cultivated areas. For example, it is estimated that American farmers produce five times as much corn in one acre of land as in one acre of land as African farmers, which results from practice and system differences, soil quality and environmental and climatic factors

3. Relevance and explanation of the topic Agriculture is the foundation of our existence - it provides us with food and resources which we depend on for survival. It is a sector which relies heavily on the environment but we have reached a point where the two are no longer in equilibrium. Agriculture has a massive impact on the environment.

Agricultural practices account for around 14% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and with 38% of the world’s land now converted and cultivated for farming, there is a clear loss of ecosystems and biodiversity in these areas. The problem we face now is that agriculture is dependent on the environment. Without biodiversity in cultivated land, farmers can face problems such as soil erosion and degradation, and climate change largely affects the practicality and efficiency of agricultural systems that rely on a steady climate and environment. With this in mind, agriculture is a sector that requires rapid innovation in order to meet the world’s needs.

The demand for agricultural output is expected to double by 2050 as a result of various social factors: An increasing population means more mouths to feed, but also an increase in wealthy consumers who seek more high impact produce such as meat and organic food means that output in a variety of unsustainable agricultural practices will also have to increase. The sector faces many problems globally - first and foremost resolving hunger, but looking to the future, adopting sustainable systems which will ensure future global food security. These issues cannot be tackled by independent nations, nor the EU alone as our agricultural policy stands.

The EU’s Common Agricultural Policy allows for agricultural innovation and funding into agriculture accounts for 40% of the budget, so it is clear that it is considered an important sector. However, having such an internal focus is no longer enough. The EU has many innovative ideas and new agricultural technologies that could benefit farmers in developing countries and rural areas, and vice versa, and yield gaps in these countries could be resolved through knowledge sharing on an international scale. With the startling predictions for the future of food security and the agricultural sector, it is now time to find a way to establish an international dialogue and knowledge sharing to innovate the sector.

Key questions: Why do we need a globalised approach to agriculture?

What aspects of agriculture pose difficulties to the sector?

Why is agriculture such a difficult area to coordinate in terms of policy?

Links for research: The Guardian reports on international research that explores ‘worldwide processes that underpin life on Earth’ and how these have exceeded safe levels.

16

The Parliament Magazine held an event called food for thought to discuss the future of agricultural innovation in the food sector.

Jonathan Foley looks at the steps towards global food security.

Nestle outline the challenges for producers and companies in the steps towards food security looking towards 2050.

4. Key Conflicts What is important first and foremost in a global approach to agricultural innovation is international communication. There are limited platforms for international legislative discussion, and even in existing platforms decisions are discussed and taken by countries with more negotiating power and not by those directly affected by the discussions. Another issue we face in knowledge sharing is the lack of dialogue between farmers and consumers even though farmers produce crops and farm livestock to meet the demands of consumers. However, there is also a lack of dialogue between farmers on an international platform. This knowledge sharing on a global scale is crucial as there are still massive yield gaps in developing countries where the farmers do not have the knowledge nor the technology to match the produce of farmers in other countries.

An issue within the concept of knowledge sharing that could be restricting international cooperation in agricultural innovation is the issue of intellectual property. Agriculture produce can be easily replicated across the globe, particularly seeded crops, so companies have little incentive to share their developed plants and processes, as they will not necessarily have intellectual protection of their property. Without intellectual property rights, companies lack the incentive to take risks and complex processes towards innovation, and intellectual property stimulates competition between companies and farmers which could benefit the agricultural sector in the long run.

An immediate problem that we face is widespread hunger. Producing food is the primary concern of the agricultural sector right now. Food security is a crucial issue in the sustainability of our lifestyles, but also in the preservation of the human race. With around one billion people in the world currently suffering from starvation as a result of food insecurity. What must be considered is that immediate emergencies often lead to short term solutions, so a balance must be sought in this conflict.

The inarguable fact that we live in an unstable climate, with natural disasters and unpredictable weather across the globe, poses a threat to agricultural productivity. Climate change is not something that just affects us in the EU, but the entire world. Agriculture has affected climate change, but now climate change is having a negative effect on agriculture. Fertilisers, livestock, manure management, burning of agricultural waste and ploughing are the main source of climate damage, but are fundamental practices within agriculture. The livestock industry alone is responsible for 18% of all greenhouse gas production.

Food security is fundamental to our survival, so it is important to develop sustainable practices. It is apparent that we must now use less input to produce more output. Industrial farming involves high input for high output and gives more produce than

17

smaller scale farming systems. Sustainable farming systems work on the basis of reaping more output from input, but do not produce as much output as industrial farming systems. Precision farming and feeding is one way to attain a good balance, but even with this in place, maintaining agricultural practices, for example livestock farming, is detracting from progress towards food security. For every 100 calories that we put into farming cattle, we produce only ten calories of beef. We need more sustainable methods to maintain these practices.

Farmers face the issue annually of which crops and farming practices they should cultivate. These decisions could be made through communication with consumers, but could also require regional, national and international monitoring of agricultural produce. However, despite innovative technologies being developed, farmers are likely to stick to their own practices and systems as there is a lack of motivation to adopt new technologies, despite incentives and funding opportunities.

As outlined above, 40% of the EU’s budget is currently spent on agriculture, due to the fundamentality of the sector. This has been criticised as many fail to see the actual results of these investments. The EU must find a way to monitor funding and demonstrate its benefits in order to secure future investments. Despite this, EU investment into agriculture is far more extensive than many other states and whilst EU funding is pumped into European projects and NGOs, other countries cannot match this funding input to their agricultural sector. If the EU invests and supports other countries, it is intervening in their bioeconomies but then the EU would have control over a portion of their agricultural sector. The EU must balance aid whilst maintaining competition between countries and allowing developing countries to flourish.

Key questions: What steps can the EU take to have inclusive, informed discussions about agriculture and its future both within the EU and on an international level?

What steps can the EU take to ensure that agricultural innovations are protected, but can also be shared globally?

How can we monitor and regulate the impact of agriculture on climate globally?

Should our current focus be on tackling hunger in order to establish a base level of food security across the world, or should the focus be on developing sustainable systems that could be implemented globally in the future?

Should agricultural practices cater to the local or regional community or be part of a bigger picture contributing to a national or international produce?

How can agricultural funding distribution be monitored and justified to ensure future investment both from governments and private investors?

What steps can the EU take to ensure that it is aiding agricultural innovation across the globe through financial aid whilst still maintaining competition?

Links for research: The EPA outlines the impact agriculture has on the environment.

An FAO depicting hunger across the globe An FAO outline of different farming systems

18

The World Intellectual Property Organisation looks at the relationship between intellectual property and agriculture.

5. Key Actors The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is an organisation that aims to improve the social and economic well-being of people around the world. It has 34 member countries. The OECD assesses and analyses agricultural policies and global agricultural trade, and holds global forums to encourage open dialogue and discussion of agricultural policies between both OECD member countries and non-member countries.

European Innovation Partnership 'Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability' (EIP-AGRI) is a project within the Europe Innovation Partnership programme which aims to bring together all relevant actors within a research area for knowledge sharing and coordinated research strategies. The EIP-AGRI focuses on innovations within the agricultural sector through streamlining funding opportunities towards common goals, providing an open platform for discussion about innovation on its website, and points people towards funding opportunities for their individual agricultural projects.

Standing Committee on Agricultural Research (SCAR) is formed of Member State representatives and is presided by a member of the European Commission. Its purpose is to advise Member States and the Commission on the coordination of agricultural research. Its work means that the EU works towards agricultural innovation as a whole through shared resources and research strategies.

The Global Agricultural and Food Security Programme (GAFSP) is an organisation that aims to improve incomes and food security in developing countries through agriculture. The programme offers funding to rural and local agricultural projects, as well as research into long term food sustainability projects and is funded by both public and private sectors from nine countries and also from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. A project like this has the potential to increase dialogue between farmers in developing countries and consumers across the globe. Supporting agriculture in these rural areas could be the beginning of a strategy towards global food security.

The United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) is an agency of the UN which focuses specifically on resolving food security in areas affected by disaster, disease or war. It is effectively an emergency food provision organisation. However, they have done extensive research into food security. This tackles the immediate issue of hunger and contributes to a state of global food security through their projects.

The Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) is a UN project with three main goals: 1) Eradication of hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition 2) Elimination of poverty and the driving towards economic and social progress for all, and 3) Sustainable use of natural resources. The FAO aims to facilitate a dialogue between those who have the knowledge and those who need it.

Farmers as a heterogeneous group are important to consider. They are the actors producing all the goods and facing the issues within agriculture outlined above. It is important for farmers to have input into agricultural policy as it directly affects them and their livelihood.

19

Consumers are the people who consume agricultural produce. By educating consumers about the food they are eating and emphasising the importance of agriculture, and also by facilitating a dialogue between farmers, researchers and consumers, we can begin to understand the global food market and work towards global food security by taking into consideration the demands of consumers.

Key questions: Should the EU follow the example of non-governmental organisations in its approach to agriculture?

Can the EU benefit organisations that work towards agricultural progress and if so, how?

How can the EU encourage dialogue between farmers on a global scale?

What can the EU do to include consumers in the agricultural process?

6. Measures in Place The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is the agricultural policy of the EU. It has many measures in place to improve and innovate agriculture within the EU. For example it allows intervention in prices of internal agricultural produce, controls imported produce prices, controls import quotas, provides subsidies for farmers based on area of land used for agriculture and adopting innovative agricultural technology, enforces production quotas, and provides direct payments for utilising natural resources. It is important for this policy to be reformed to focus on global discussion and how innovative systems can be discussed and researched on a global platform.

The Rural Development Policy is a European Commission initiative aimed at increasing knowledge transfer and innovation in agriculture by providing funding for projects that work towards this. The initiative currently facilitates this only within the EU. This is important as a focus on domestic agricultural innovation is crucial in maintaining food security within the Union, however, there is potential for this project to be more globalised.

Alongside the Rural Development Policy Horizon 2020 is an EU framework programme for research and innovation. It offers funding to projects researching and innovating various areas of agriculture. This benefits the European agricultural sector and allows European farmers to innovate and make use of internal funding to facilitate their new technology and systems. In addition, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is a fund providing support to people losing their jobs as a result of major changes to world trade patterns. The European Commission is now discussing including farmers in this fund.

A potential solution to the issue of global discussion of agriculture could be found in the European Research Area (ERA) which is an EU established platform for research sharing and discussion which deals with research on regional, national and union levels. It currently does not expand outwith the EU, but aims to do so in the future.

7. Conclusion There are many measures in place to maintain agricultural sustainability and innovation within the EU, but in order to strive for global food security and sustainability, these efforts need to expand

20

outwith the EU. Investing in the future of global food security is the only way to ensure our own future sustainability. How can we monitor global food security and what steps can the EU take towards security? We face many problems in the agricultural sector such as unpredictable climate change, demand outweighing supply, and the need for widespread sustainable systems. There must be international discussion and cooperation, particularly to ensure understanding of rural agricultural situations in developing countries so that research and innovation can build upon these areas. How can we facilitate this dialogue between rural farmers and researchers from an EU perspective? How can we then make this a global dialogue? All of the options within the agricultural sector must be weighed up in terms of ethics and practicality - Â genetic engineering, industrial farming and sustainable farming, and primarily the quest to end hunger. Does the EU have to order these issue in terms of priority or can it support multiple at one time? Is any issue more important than another? The EU must take action towards global food security now, before we lose control of the situation. But what steps can we take towards global food security? How can the EU ensure that innovation and research into agriculture takes the form of a coordinated global effort?

8. Essential Research The OECD-FAO overview of global agricultural outlook from last year (2014) Agricultural Research and innovation within the EU The problem with CAP The WFP’s projects towards global agricultural sustainability

21

COMMITTEE COMMITTEE ON ON INTERNAL INTERNAL MARKET MARKET AND AND CONSUMER CONSUMER PROTECTION PROTECTION (IMCO) (IMCO) !

! !

! !

Risk or opportunity: With sharing-economy enterprises such as Uber and Airbnb becoming more popular and common, what regulatury framework best allows the EU and its Member States to prevent new challenges of circumvention of competition, taxation and labour laws whilst profiting from the innovative potential and high accessibility of the sharing-economy?

By Lia Pachler (AT) 1. Video Links A short documentary film about the rise of the sharing economy. It examines the benefits and drawbacks of the sharing economy movement.

Professor Arun Sundararajan unravels the sharing economy: how consumer technology, digital trust, and new marketplaces like Airbnb and Uber will cause a widespread “reingineering of consumption”.

2. Key Terms Sharing-economy: (also known as collaborative consumption) a sector of the economy, where consumers pay for temporary access rights to a product, rather than buying one’s own product on a permanent basis. Sharing- economy companies offer microentrepreneurs the possibility to earn (additional) money by sharing goods or offering services on their platforms. Its origins were in not-for-profit initiatives such as Wikipedia (2001), Couchsurfing and Freecycle (both 2003).

Peer-to-peer (P2P) platform: (sometimes also referred to as “consumer-to-consumer”, C2C) a platform, usually in the form of a website or an app, where consumers can offer and buy or rent goods or services directly from a peer, thus without a middle man.

Incumbents: businesses or workers, who already operate in a certain market.

Micro-entrepreneur: someone who owns a micro-entreprise. In the EU a microenterprises is defined by meeting two of the following three criteria: having fewer than 10 employees, a balance sheet total below €2 million, a turnover below €2 million. These enterprises usually do not grow much, the main aim is to just earn one’s living.

Uber: one of the most famous companies, which offer a P2P platform for rideshares. As of 16 December 2014 the service was available in 53 countries and more than 200 cities worldwide, and was valued at more than $40 billion. Uber’s services were banned in some countries as for example in Germany, Belgium and France.

22

Airbnb: one of the most famous companies, which offer a P2P platform for renting one’s own space for accommodation.

Links for research: A chart explaining the sharing- economy.

3. Relevance and explanation of the problem New business models, where people share their goods or offer certain services, gain popularity day by day. These innovative companies offer micro-entrepreneurs an easier access to the market and consumers often benefit from lower prices and more convenience. The most prominent sharing services are those based around accommodation and cars, provided by for example Airbnb and Uber.

The popularity of these services derives from economic, environmental and social factors.

Many peer-to-peer rental firms were founded between 2008 and 2010, in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, as people realized the high potential and economic benefits of the sharing economy. With increasing unemployment rates and raised taxes the purchasing power of consumers has dropped. Thus, people are in need of (additional) ways to earn and save money.

Moreover, renting already existing assets rather than buying new ones corresponds with the increased significance of sustainability these days as the emphasis shifts from ownership to sharing. Also, a common motivation is the desire to increase social connections, like meeting new people or getting to know one’s neighbours. However, these sharing platforms would not work so smoothly if digital technology was not as advanced as it is as of today. Ordering and paying for the offered goods or services just with a click in an app, or location services facilitating the finding of the closest provider within seconds, make it very convenient and attractive for consumers.

However, such businesses also elicit a lot of criticism. As they are quite new and contain many innovative elements, they barely fit the box of regulations for imcumbents, which is one of the reasons why many sharing-economy companies circumvent tax laws, labour laws and competition laws. A big problem in Europe is that Member States handle these companies in different ways (examples see below at “Measures in place”).

Another reason why companies like Uber or Lyft are being criticized, is that drivers offering services through their platforms often do not have a taxi licence. Uber up until now has insisted that it is a technology service connecting drivers with potential riders and not a taxi company although it is often argued that Uber is operating in effect as an unlicensed taxi service. This issue does not only apply to Uber though. There is the general question about how to categorise P2Pcompanies.

In addition, questions around insurance and legal liability remain. If a provider leaves his car to a customer for a fee and the customer has an accident while driving, who is liable? The platformproviding company, the person who has rented out the car or the person who has been driving the car? Another open question is how to categorise people who use the platform to offer their services or goods. Are they micro-entepreneurs, employees or independent contractors? Or are they simply private persons earning some extra money? Uber has been critized for classifying their drivers as independent contractors to avoid paying them as employees with the same benefits like insurance and minimum wages.

23

Also, some services are falling foul of industry-specific regulations. Landlords are clamping down on tenants who sub-let their properties in violation of the terms of their leases. Tax collectors are asking whether all the income from sharing schemes is being declared.

Key questions: Why does the popularity of collaborative consumption increase steadily?

What obstacles do sharing-economy businesses face in their development?

Who should be liable in case of an accident?

How should people offering services through P2P-platforms be categorised?

Links for research: The New York Times interviewed Uber’s C.E.O., Travis Kalanick, about the ride-sharing company’s business practices, including liability in accidents (it also contains a short video).

Forbes about the unstoppable rise of the sharing-economy (including an interview with an Airbnb provider).

Entrepreneur about how to successfully launch a business in the sharing-economy.

4. Key conflicts On the one hand sharing-economy enterprises create a lot of new jobs, but on the other hand they jeopardize “old” ones. There have been a lot of protests in major cities across Europe, such as London and Paris, of taxi and licensed-driver trade groups and unions accusing (mostly nonlicensed) Uber drivers of having an unfair advantage, seeing that they aren’t regulated. With many of the sharing-economy companies circumventing and infringing different kind of (local) laws, and especially their unfair business practices, the sharing-economy is sometimes seen as a threat to local business. At the same time it is considered as an economic opportunity with great potential. Advocates of sharing-economy companies often claim that they should be less strongly regulated than incumbent companies, as they foster innovation and sustainability. So the question remains how these opportunities can best be reaped to the advantage of everyone.

Apart from economic, environmental and social factors there are other factors why these innovative markets have been successful. Trust and reputation play a crucial role in the sharingeconomy, as a lot of peer-to-peer companies had troubles with gaining trust from consumers when they entered the market. Thus, successful online marketplaces have scaled because they have created well-designed reputation systems, which allow users to identify trusted community members. Trust and reputation become increasingly important in peer-to-peer marketplaces, such as Airbnb, where members are taking a risk in renting out their homes to complete strangers.

It goes without saying that people do not want to rent their assets to someone with bad reputation, but rather to someone who behaved accordingly in the past. Hence, a big danger of these systems lies in the split-up of people into people with good reputation and people with bad reputation.

As already mentioned, the sharing-economy comes with a lot of advantages for providers and customers, but there are also a few drawbacks. The quality and safety risks are high in a sharingeconomy model as the provider is not a brand or a professional. For that reason, companies like Uber started doing background checks on their drivers, although they have been highly critized for the low quality of its own checks. In incumbent companies criminal background checks, driving record checks, health checks and license verification are all part of the screening

24

process for taxi drivers. Airbnb doesn’t do background checks of hosts or renters at all, so users rely even more on ratings and rankings.

Just last summer a Uber driver in the US suffered an epileptic seizure while driving that resulted in an accident with a pedestrian after hitting three parked cars. Airbnb hosts have reported about finding their homes in a complete mess after renting it out. Also, Uber’s 15-second system for a driver to accept a request from a customer is quite controversial as the driver has to tap their phone within 15 seconds. This presents a significant distraction to drivers, as they are financially motivated to respond to fares while driving and might even be temporarily suspended for ignoring these requests.

Key questions: The sharing-economy: a threat to local business or an economic oppurtinity?

Uber’s business model: is it opening up oppurtinies by providing a platform which matches providers with costumers or is it a company that simply tries to exploit loopholes and its drivers?

Should the state profit from successful innovation through tax incomes or is it okay for firms with innovative models not to pay taxes (even if they mark high profits)?

Do the benefits for consumers outweigh the dangers like quality, safety and health risks?

Should the European Commission and the Member Sates seek to protect incumbents?

Links for research: The Guardian about Uber trying to establish new partnerships with Europe’s cities in order to expand in Europe.

Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the European Commission, responding to numerous attempts to limit or ban taxi app services across Europe.

Raj Kapoor, who has invested in and ran companies in the sharing economy, on necessary ingredients for a company built on this model to succeed.

Uber’s terms and conditions for each country they operate in.

5. Key actors Naturally, relevant stakeholders in this debate are sharing-economy enterprises themselves. Uber and Airbnb are the most prominent ones, but there are many others. Being responsible for regulating the EU’s internal market and for the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy, the European Commission holds a key role in potentially creating a regulatory framework for sharing-economy companies. Additionally, the EC is funding agencies, as eg. Social Innovation Europe, which could assist innovation and collaboration in the sharing-economy. The Social Innovation Europe initative “is working to connect policy makers, entrepreneurs, academics and third sector workers with other innovators from across Europe.” It is its goal to “become a hub- a meeting place in the network of European networks- where innovative thinkers from all 28 Member States can come together to create a streamlined, vigorous social innovation field in Europe, to raise a shared voice, and to propel Europe to lead the practice of social innovation globaly.”

An invitation from the European Commission (EC) to discuss the importance of tackling the sharing-economy model for the EU was followed by the launch of the European

25

Sharing Economy Coaltion (EURO-SHE) at a public hearing in the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), one of the advisory bodies of the EC, on 25 September 2013. EUROSHE seeks to promote the sharing-economy. According to the homepage of EURO-SHE, “the sharing-economy and the EU have common goals: increase resource efficiency, create jobs and prosperity, build community participation and advance social innovation.” Decisions of the EURO-SHE are presented to the EU decision makers in various key fora to obtain political support and inform policy priorities. The Coalitions’s advisory arm provides strategic consulting to public and private sector clients launching or growing sharing-economy ventures and projects.

Member States and sometimes local authorities and councils also hold a key role as they are often the ones who enforce regulations. In France or Germany, for instance, it was courts who declared services offered by Uber illegal and therefore banned these services.

Those, who oppose sharing-economy business models probably the most are incumbents as they consider it as a threat to their own business. Their main claim is that these companies practice unfair competition and take too much advantage of their uncertain legal situation.

Consumers have a high interest in sharing-economy business models due to lower prices and a high level of convenience. They are also quite powerful in this sector as they are the ones who show demand and therefore keep sharing-economy businesses alive, either as providers or as customers.

Key questions: How do these key actors see each other? What are their relations to each other?

Who could make a difference? Who hast the biggest impact? Who could change the current situation?

Links for research: The New York Times on the European Union’s uneven response to technological innovation.

6. Measures in place Legislation specifically tailored to the sharing-economy is mostly lacking in Europe and it can be highly doubted whether the existing regulations for incumbents meet the needs of the sharingeconomy. Yet, there is a number of programs and roadmaps, which aims match those of certain sharing-economy business models.

Some European countries like Portugal support sharing-economy businesses. In Portugal a new rental law is meant to help Airbnb and local rivals grow, while also encouraging apartment owners to register their property and pay taxes. Portugal’s new law sets no limits on how many rooms or how long an apartment can be rented. However, it forces owners to register their properties online with local municipalities as an apartment or a hostel if it has more than nine rooms. On the other hand, cities like Barcelona, where Airbnb was fined for breaching regional property rental rules, are clamping down on the sharing-economy companies. Needles to say, this makes it difficult for these start-ups to operate in multiple European countries and to navigate regulatory changes.

26

Horizon 2020 is the biggest EU Research and Innovation programme ever with nearly €80 billion of funding available over 7 years (2014-2020) and is seen as a means to drive economic growth and create jobs. By coupling research and innovation, Horizon 2020, as a part of the Europe 2020 Strategy, is helping to achieve smart, sustainable and inclusive growth and jobs with its emphasis on excellent science, industrial leadership and tackling societal challenges. The goal is to ensure Europe produces world-class science, removes barriers to innovation and makes it easier for the public and private sectors to work together in delivering innovation. Horizon 2020 will help companies engaged in Research & Innovation, like sharing-economy enterprises, to gain easier access, via financial instruments, to loans, guarantees, counter-guarantees and hybrid, mezzanine and equity finance. The focus remains on attracting private investments into Research & Innovation.

In July 2008 the EC presented the Sustainable Consumption and Production and Sustainable Industrial Policy (SCP/SIP) Action Plan. This Action Plan includes a series of proposals on sustainable consumption and production, which will contribute to improving the environmental performance of products and increase the demand for more sustainable goods and production technologies. Also, it seeks to encourage EU industry to take advantage of oppurtunities to innovate. Like the SCP Action Plan, the Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe aims to transform the EU’s economy towards more sustainable consumption and production. All these are relevant as the sharing-economy will quite likely have a substantial contribution to achieving more sustainable consumption patterns due to its focus on more usage instead of ownership.

The Entrepreneurship 2020 Action Plan “is a blueprint for decisive action to unleash Europe’s entrepreneurial potential, to remove existing obstacles and to revolutionise the culture of entrepreneurship in Europe”. It aims to provide outreach, support and an environment where entrepreneurship can flourish.

The Digital Agenda for Europe, an initiative of the Europe 2020 strategy, “aims to reboot Europe’s economy and help Europe’s citizens and businesses to get the most out of digital technologies.” It consists of 7 pillars, the most applicable ones for the sharing-economy being creating a connected digital single market, turning the best research ideas into marketable products and services, and enhancing digital literacy, skills and inclusion amongst people to increase web users’ trust and security online. They are relevant in order to enhance the prospects of the sharing-economy.

Key questions: What actions have been taken by Member States and the European Commission?

Does the sharing-economy need (more) legislation on a national and/or European level?

If yes, what actions shall be taken by the European Commission and Member States?

How can the sharing-economy sector benefit from the various programmes and funds mentioned?

Are the existing programmes and funds enough to (financially) support the sharingeconomy?

Links for research: Europe 2020 in a nutshell A short animation clip, which gives a general overview of Horizon 2020’s programme specifics.

27

8. Conclusion “We’re moving from a world where we’re organized around ownership to one organized around access to assets,” - Lisa Gansky, who started the Ofoto photo-sharing site (before selling it in 2001 to Eastman Kodak).

“It isn’t clear that the cities need to change their regulations,” says Wharton management professor Peter Cappelli. “For example, with Uber, cities have rules that govern things like background checks on taxi drivers and the amount of insurance they carry. Should Uber be exempt from them? It’s not clear why.” Even if the sharing services say they are complying with the law, there has to be a system of checks and balances. “The reason we regulate some industries is because we don’t trust them to regulate themselves,” Cappelli adds. “We don’t want to take the word of restaurants that their kitchens are clean, because the consequences to the public if they are not [doing so] are big.”

“We must ensure that, as new online marketplaces revolutionize the way we live, laws designed to promote safety and quality-of-life are not forsaken under the pretext of innovation,” Eric Schneiderman, an Attorney General “A lot of companies like Uber have very strong Libertarian streaks. They think the sole purpose of government regulations is to protect entrenched interests and restrict new entrants.” – Ethan Mollick, a Wharton management professor “The more interesting challenge seems to be how the existing companies should adapt to these new ones. If riders are willing to pay a premium for rides on Uber because the cars are clean and the drivers show up quickly, what should the taxi and limo companies be doing to compete with that? Seems like there is a market there.” - Peter Cappelli “Once the genie is out of the bottle, it’s hard to put it back,”- Gilles Duranton, a Wharton real estate professor.

Being familiar with all the positive and negative effects of the sharing-economy sector now, would you rent your apartment to complete strangers for a few days to earn some extra cash?

Would you use Uber to go home after a party to save some money? Would your friends and/or parents be supportive or would they try to prevent you from doing so?

28

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE I (INTA I) !

! !

Overcoming power imbalances: With Latin America’s growing economies becoming an increasingly profitable market for European exports, how should the EU benefit from mutual trade and political cooperation all the while contributing to the development of human rights and environmental protection in the region?

By Juan Estheiman Amaya (ES) 1. Video Links A New Deal: EU-Latin America Trade Agreements. Interview with Express Matthias Jorgensen (EC’s DG for trade), Joerg Leichtfried (MEP) and Erik Van Mele (policy officer at Oxfam): The Honey Trap - EU-Latin America Trade Agreements, by EBX NEWS.

2. Key Terms Customs duty/tariff: It is a tax charged on imports by customs authorities, in order to raise state revenue, and protect domestic producers and companies from more competitive foreign companies and producers.

Non-tariff barriers (NTBs): Trade barriers that restrict imports but are not in the form of a tariff. This encompasses regulations in a broad array of sectors that basically increase the cost of doing business. Examples include quality standards, shipping and label requirements and technical or legal requirements for imported products.

Trade liberalisation: The removal or reduction of restrictions and/or barriers on the free exchange of goods between countries. This includes the removal or reduction of both tariff and non-tariff obstacles.

Protectionism: an economic policy that supposes that a nation will benefit from the protection of its internal market from outside forces through subsidies and trade barriers.

Association Agreement: political agreements concluded with the aim of setting up an allembracing framework to conduct bilateral relations. These agreements normally provide for the progressive liberalisation of trade.

Free Trade Agreement (FTA): A binding agreement between two parties to jointly lower tariffs and barriers on goods and services between them.

Foreign Direct Investment (FDI): An investment made by a company or entity based in one country, into a company or entity based in another country.

Conditionality: the use of conditions attached to the provision of benefits such as a loan, debt relief or bilateral aid. These conditions can be requirements to enhance aid effectiveness, such as anti-corruption measures, or can comprehend more controversial 29

#

measures, such as austerity or the privatization of public services.

Offshoring: The moving of various operations of a company to another country with the aim of increasing its benefits. Reasons for offshoring are generally lower labour costs, more favourable economic conditions or more lenient environmental policies.

3. Relevance and explanation of the problem The first summit of Heads of State between the EU and the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) took place in Rio de Janeiro in 1999. This summit marked the beginning of a strategic partnership between the two regions, with both sides recognising shared interests and the need for closer cooperation. 16 years later, Association Agreements have only been reached with Central America (2012), Colombia and Peru (2013). In regards to Mercosur, the region’s strongest bloc, negotiations were re-launched in 2010 and nine chapters have taken place to date.

The Association Agreements currently being negotiated comprehend a wide range of sectors (such as agriculture, services, investment, sustainable development, etc.), which affect individual Member States’ interests to different extents. For example, Member States with important agricultural sectors such as France or Spain are more reluctant to open imports on cheaper agricultural products coming from Latin American competitors. This portrays how liberalisation could potentially weaken some Member States’ competitiveness in certain markets. Despite such disadvantages, the reciprocal liberalisation of Latin America and the EU’s markets through Association Agreements are significant alternatives to stimulate both regions’ economies.

In regards to environmental protection, the promotion of development, and the respect for Human Rights, these were all identified as key priorities during the last EU-CELAC summit held in Chile in 2013. Mutual cooperation is fundamental in order to reach the objectives set in each field. However, numerous actors must be willing to compromise in order for optimum agreements to be reached.

Key questions: Why are Latin America - EU relations relevant?

What benefits can trade relations bring to both regions?

What are the potential negative consequences of free trade agreements from a European perspective? And from the Latin American side?

What other non-economical challenges do we find in EU - Latin America relations?

Links for research: European Union External Action on the EU Latin America and the Caribbean Summit 2013.

EU & Latin American Trade, by Grace Twardy.

4. Key conflicts A balance between the different interests and objectives in the region is the main conflict to be assessed. The EU must find alternative markets to stimulate its recessed economy, all while honouring the compromises undertaken in the fields of human rights, sustainable development

30

and social development. The power imbalance between both regions is also relevant, given that detrimental agreements are normally imposed on the weaker party. However, the EU is bound by the principles of solidarity (Art. 1 TEU) and the respect for Human Rights (Art. 6.3 TEU). These principles are also binding in its relations with third countries, which means that negotiations must be conducted within their limits. Nonetheless, the ineffective fulfilment of international treaties (such the United Nations Development goals) is also a major issue in international relations.

The other main problem that we encounter is the heterogeneity of the sub-regional integration blocs. This reflects the deep political and ideological divisions and major economic asymmetries within Latin America. One finds three main regional blocs (Mercosur, the Andean Community and Central America), Chile and Mexico. Seeing how negotiations, especially with Mercosur, have proved to be difficult, the effectiveness of the EU’s one fits all approach should be questioned.

In regards to the promotion of development in the region, while trade is a necessary condition for development, it is not sufficient. Trade liberalisation measures and complementary policies can foster growth and poverty reduction. However, domestic reforms are essential to sustain trade and investment-led growth. The economic performance of developing countries is often impeded by inadequate infrastructures, poor governance, corruption and fraud. Furthermore, weak social and environmental policy frameworks result in unsustainable exploitation of natural resources, educational insufficiencies, violence and social instability.

In order to counterbalance some of the aforesaid insufficiencies, development aid has always played a big role in Europe-Latin America relations. The EU has been the leading donor of official development assistance (ODA) to Latin America in the last decade. Despite having received substantial sums, Latin America’s deficiencies still remain. Moreover, the conditionality of development aid can have medium and long term negative consequences in the recipient countries. This brings out the question of whether such instruments ultimately serve their purposes. Alternative mechanisms such as fair trade initiatives, educational scholarships, institutional cooperation programmes and the empowerment of regional organisations should aim to guarantee that development is actually achieved.

Environmental preservation was identified as a priority in the 2013 EU-CELAC summit. Latin America’s flexible environmental policies can be attractive for multinational companies looking to offshore their factories, or exploit natural resources. However, the positive economic consequences of this type of development must be contrasted to the ecological footprint and damages caused in hosting countries. The overexploitation of natural resources and deforestation of rainforest areas are also key concerns amongst NGOs and civil activists.

Furthermore, mining and the production of ethanol biofuels (mainly through sugarcane crops) can result in the overuse of water, and an increase in food prices. This is especially problematic for poor communities that are highly dependent on agriculture.

Key questions: What do power imbalances represent in bilateral/multilateral relations?

How does the principle of solidarity affect the EU’s foreign policy?

What other, more effective approaches, could the EU take when negotiating with such a fragmented region like Latin America?

How can the EU ensure the protection of environmental, social and Human Rights in areas outside its jurisdiction?

31

Links for research: Joaquín Roy analyses European Union-Latin American Relations in a Turbulent Era. European Commission’s communication on tailoring trade and investment for developing countries.

European Commission’s press release for the tenth anniversary of the EU - Latin America Strategic Partnership.

The Economist article on the paradox of plenty.

5. Key actors The European Union: Trade policy is an exclusive competence of the EU. This means that the EU, and not individual Member States, negotiates international trade agreements. The European Commission negotiates with the trading partner on behalf of the whole EU but does so in close cooperation with the Council and European Parliament, who ultimately approve the overall agreement.

The European Commission's Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development (DG DEVCO, aka Europeaid) is responsible for designing European international cooperation and development policy and delivering aid throughout the world.

Mercosur: Its current members are Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay and Venezuela. Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru are associated states. Like in the EU, Mercosur has exclusive competences in trade. This means that trade agreements must also be agreed jointly between its member countries. Brazil’s economic dominance in the region and its need for expansive trade policies make consensus difficult to be reached within Mercosur.

Andean Community of Nations (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru): A trade agreement with the EU has been provisionally applied with Peru since March 2013 and with Colombia since August 2013. It provides for the total liberalisation of trade in industrial products and fisheries over ten years (with most tariffs eliminated at its entry into force) and increases market aces for agricultural products (85% are to be liberalised within 17 years).

Central America (Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama): The EU and the Central American region concluded an Association Agreement, signed on 29 June 2012. The agreement is based on political dialogue, cooperation, and trade. Central America faces important problems in terms of the protection of Human Rights. Political corruption, organised crime and drug cartels have brought instability to the region. El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala currently hold some of highest homicide rates in the world.

CELAC: Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), launched in 2010, is a regional mechanism for political dialogue and cooperation encompassing for the first time all 33 LAC countries.

China and the USA: Following utilitarian approaches towards Latin America, these two countries are the EU’s major foreign competitors in the region. China’s emergence in the last years

32

has altered the foreign power balance in the region. Although EU trade with Latin America has increased over time in terms of value, the EU has lost ground to China in terms of market share over the last years.

Lobbying groups: agricultural organisations and worker syndicates often see free trade agreements as threats to their own interests and competitiveness. On the other hand, big businesses and corporations consider such agreements as positive mechanisms for economic stimuli.

NGOs, environmentalists and civil society are very critical of the consequences that trade agreement have over developing countries. These groups are especially concerned about the environmental, social and economic consequences deriving from the power imbalances.

Key questions: What are is the most important actor in economic terms?

What difficulties does having a common trade union represent for Mercosur?

How are the US and China’s influences in the region, relevant to EU Latin America trade relations?

Is it possible to achieve economically beneficial trade agreements without harming smaller actors’ interests?

Links for research: European Commission's Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development programmes for Latin America.

United Nations Office for Drugs and Crime’s 2014 Global study on Homicide.

The Diplomat on CELAC - China relations.

6. Measures in place EU-CELAC summits take place biannually. They seek to promote political dialogue and cooperation between the two regions. The last summit in Santiago (2013) concluded with the agreement on the EU-CELAC Action Plan 2013-2015 and the Santiago Declaration. The next EU-CELAC summit is set to take place in Brussels during 2015. The Action Plan 2013-2015 encompasses eight key areas that both regions identified as priorities for development. The Santiago Declaration includes a series of shared principles regarding human rights, trade, sustainable development, climate change and social cohesion.

EU GSP / GSP+: The EU's "Generalised Scheme of Preferences" (GSP) allows developing country exporters to pay less or no duties on their exports to the EU. The "GSP+ enhanced preferences” means full removal of tariffs on essentially the same product categories as those covered by the general arrangement. These are granted to developing countries which ratify and implement international conventions relating to human and labour rights, environment and good governance.

EU’s Aid for Trade assistance: Aid for Trade is part of Official Development Aid (ODA) related to improving countries’ capacity to trade. This can include support for building new transport, energy or telecommunications infrastructure, investments in

33

agriculture, fisheries and services, as well as assistance in managing any balance of payments shortfalls.

Latin America Investment Facility (LAIF): The main purpose of LAIF is to mobilise additional financing to support investment in Latin America. In order to develop its main objective, LAIF pursues three strategic objectives: establishing better energy and transport infrastructures; increasing the protection of the environment and support climate change, adaptation and mitigation; and promoting equitable and sustainable socio-economic development through the improvement of the social services infrastructure and support for small and medium enterprises (SMEs).

EUROCLIMA: Regional cooperation programme between the European Union and Latin America focused on climate change. The Programme's objective is to facilitate the integration of climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies and measures into Latin American public development policies and plans.

Key questions: What role does development aid play in international relations?

Is development aid actually effective at tackling developing countries’ problems?

How does the conditionality affect the objectives of development aid?

What are the necessary requirements for development programmes to succeed?

7. Key Facts and Figures EU – Mercosur • In the last decade, European exports to Mercosur have increased by 43.4%, while European imports from Mercosur have remained almost constant (from 2.12% to 3.04%).

• The EU enterprises’ stock of foreign direct investment (FDI) has steadily increased over the past years and amounted to €280 billion in 2012 compared to €130 billion in 2000.

• With a 20% share of Mercosur’s overall trade, the EU is its first trading partner.

• EU exports were worth €57 billion in 2012 and consisted mainly of manufactured products, while imports from Mercosur were made up of agricultural products (40%) and raw materials (28%).

• The EC's 2007-2013 regional strategy paper, provided €50 million in funding for: the implementation of the future association agreement (70%) enhancing the role of civil society (20%), and supporting Mercosur institutions (10%).

EU - Andean Community • The EU is the Andean Community's second-largest trading partner after the US. • EU imports from the Andean Community consist mainly of agricultural products (38%) and fuels and mining products (54%).

• EU exports are mostly machinery and transport equipment (50%) and chemical products (19%).

• The EC regional strategy paper 2007-2013 earmarked €50 million in funding for: regional economic integration (40%), social and economic cohesion (40%) and drug control (20%).

34

• • •

EU exports to Central America primarily consisted of machinery and transport equipment (47.2%) and chemicals (21.5%).

EU imports from Central America were made up of machinery and transport equipment (59.6%) and agricultural products (30.1%).

The EC regional strategy paper for 2007-2013 earmarked €75 million in funding for: customs union related common policies (62.5%), institutional framework for regional integration (26.5%), and regional governance and public safety (1%).

Links for research: Eurostat economic indicators for trade and investment with Latin America.

European Commission’s report on trade with Latin America: World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) regional statistics: World Bank data on Latin America.

World Bank data on the EU.

8. Conclusion The complexity of the problem lies in the numerous fields and ethical considerations to be taken into account. In this regard, what priorities should the EU establish in regards to EU-LAC relations? A common direction will have to be decided while also taking into account the US and China’s influence in the area. These two countries’ utilitarian approaches could bring more benefits in purely economic terms, so how can the EU remain an attractive trade partner while respecting its compromises in the fields of environmental and Human Rights protection?

Latin America’s internal power imbalances make it a divided region with heterogeneous interests.

Since the first EU - LAC Summit in 1999, few advances have been made. Could this be due to an incorrect approach from the EU’s part to meet each region’s particular interests? How then should the EU overcome the difficulties of negotiating with such a politically fragmented region? Finally, is the granting of ODA effective at tackling countries’ development deficiencies? What other mechanisms could be more effective?

The heterogeneity of interests is not only limited to Latin America. There are numerous actors within the EU that are affected by EU-LAC relations. Each of their particular interests should be equally taken into account by our decision makers. How should the EU induce economic stimuli through market liberalisation without jeopardising its smaller actors’ interests?

Another conflict that will need to be addressed is the extent to which the EU has the responsibility to engage in the promotion of Human Rights in Latin America. The EU has ethical and legal obligations to protect Human Rights, but does this promotion conflictive with external countries’ sovereignty and self-determination when operating outside of EU borders?

9. Essential Research European Parliamentary Research Services briefing on EU-Latin America relations.

The European Commission explains the EU’s negotiations step by step.

European Commision press release on the 2013 Santiago EU-CELAC summit.

ITAM professor Stephan Sberro analyses the consequences of the Santiago Summit.

European Union External Action on the EU Latin America and the Caribbean Summit 2013.

35

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE II (INTA II) ! ! !

Finding equitable health regulations: Uncured illnesses and increasing last- line resistance call for both fuelling pharmaceutical R&D and the promotion of fair access to medicine worldwide. How should the EU promote innovation in the pharmaceutical sector.

By Rebecca Smith (FR) 1. Video Links Business Bulletin on France 24 - about a conflict between the pharmaceutical company Novartis and India, illustrating the tension between pharmaceuticals and distribution of cheap medicine (2012).

A short video from the organisation UNAIDS showing some of the problems with making HIV medicine accessible, and a potential solution.

2. Key Terms Research and Development (R&D): it can be corporate or governmental, and can either focus on finding completely new products and processes, or improve on existing products and processes. The discoveries are intended to bring future growth and profit (especially to companies), but the investment is risky and has uncertain results.

Pharmaceutical companies spend a very high proportion of their budget on R&D, significantly higher than most other companies.

Intellectual property: a work or creation of the mind, such as inventions, discoveries, literature, and images. Intellectual property is protected by intellectual property laws.

These laws grant certain rights on the creation, called intellectual property rights.

Monopoly: an exclusive right to the supply of a good or a service. Monopolies are not open to competition, and thus the supplier sets the price wherever he or she wants, without having to adapt to demand. In most cases monopolies are illegal.

Patent: a common type of intellectual property right. It gives to the creator of an intellectual property exclusive rights over that intellectual property, in particular the exclusive right to make, use or sell it; in other words, the creator has a legal monopoly over the invention. The World Trade Organisation requires all its member states to offer patents of a minimum of twenty years.

Last-line resistance: disease-causing bacteria that have evolved to be resistant to all antibiotics. Last-line drugs refer to very powerful antibiotics used as a last-resort when the bacteria has evolved to be resistant. Last-line resistance occurs when even those drugs are ineffective. These bacterial diseases thus have no treatment.

Generic medicine: medicine that is identical to the original developed drug, but that is

36

not produced by the original creator. Generic drugs become available once the patent on the original drug has expired, thus ending the monopoly on that medicine and usually considerably reducing the price of that medicine.

Return on Investment (ROI): a measure of evaluating investments. It is calculated by dividing the benefit (return) of an investment by the cost of the investment. A high ROI means the gains from investment are far greater than the cost of investment.

Equity pricing: a price that is fair, equitable and affordable from the point of view of the buyer. According to the WHO, “those in favour of equity pricing argue that the poor should pay less for essential medicines�.

Evergreening: the process of patenting a new drug based on an old one. It enables the original company to maintain a patent for longer than twenty years. In India, this is considered illegal as only new innovations can be patented.

Uncured illness: illnesses that do not have a treatment. These vary from very lethal diseases, such as Ebola, to common and often benign diseases such as the cold.

3. Relevance and explanation of the problem There has been overwhelming improvement in health in the past century, dramatically increasing life expectancy and quality of life worldwide. Widespread life-threatening diseases have either been eradicated like smallpox, greatly decreased like malaria, or become treatable like tuberculosis. Despite these advancements, there is still the need for research and development of drugs. Diseases for which there is currently no cure (for example certain types of cancer, AIDS, and Ebola), and last-line resistant bacteria are compelling illustrations that this need is urgent.

Developing new medicine is a long and costly process. In addition to the time, resources and expertise put in researching and discovering the drug itself, new drugs have to undergo extensive trials and be approved by an independent agency to ensure that they are both safe and effective.

However, in many cases the exact cost is disputed, with pharmaceutical companies citing a higher cost than public organisations and independent researchers. In the overwhelming majority of cases, drugs are financed by a patent based model. Once a new drug is developed and patented, the creator company has a twenty-year monopoly on its production and sale, and can thus sell it at a high price for large profit. This model has been used successfully so far, as it enables to both make the investment worthwhile, and provide enough funds to invest in further necessary discoveries.

However, this model has some important drawbacks. It leads to expensive medicines and a focus on drugs for lucrative markets, neglecting poor populations who have large medicine needs but little means to pay for them. Life-saving drugs, such as anti-retrovirals to treat HIV or cancer medicine, are often inaccessible for people in the developing world, and drugs specific for children are under-developed. This creates a moral conflict: how should intellectual property rights and the need for innovation be balanced with the need for medicine for the poor?

This conflict is well illustrated in a recent legal case. In 2013, the supreme court of India rejected a patent application by the Swiss pharmaceutical company Novartis for a cancer drug. The patent application was for a new version of an old drug rather than a new drug, allowing Novartis to maintain a monopoly over the drug and reaping profits from its sales, a process known as evergreening. The ruling suggests that India favours accessibility rather than funding for

37

innovation, although some also argue that India benefits from the production and sale of generic drugs. Opponents to the ruling claim that this will harm innovation for new drugs.

Although the patent system greatly increases the price of medicine, it is important to note that it is not the only barrier to medicine access for poor populations. Diseases that are curable still cause many deaths in the developing world because treatment is not available locally, or because many people cannot afford even generic medicine. Access to medicine depends on factors such as ensuring that people can receive the product and understand how to use it, ensuring affordability for patients, health-care providers and governments, as well as ensuring that the medicine is effective and safe.

With many diseases having a global burden, the research and manufacturing in one region will inevitably have a global impact. Indeed, the 2013 legal case in India affected not only India, but also the many developing countries relying on India’s production of cheap generic medicine.

Currently, the majority of drugs are being developed in the United States, although the EU is also a leader in the discovery of new medicines.

Key questions: Should patents on life-saving drugs be allowed?

Should the focus be on innovation or providing access to drugs?

Is the patent model an appropriate financing strategy for medicines?

How can the cost of developing new drugs be minimised?

Links for research: Video explaining the process of discovering a new drug.

NOTE: this video explains drug development in the US, and refers to the FDA, which is the Food and Drug Administration.

The core of the process is the same in Europe, although the examining bodies have different names.

Article on last-line drug resistance in Europe.

4. Key conflicts There are many conflicts surrounding the patent model for financing drug development. The most visible one is the conflict between protection of intellectual property in the form of patents, and accessibility of medicines for the poor. Patent-protected new drugs, some of them life-saving, are sold at very high prices to pay back for the investment, making them unaffordable for most people in developing countries. This is often framed as a conflict between the need for investment in innovation and accessibility of existing drugs.

In manufacturing, there is a conflict between pharmaceuticals developing new medicines and generic manufacturers producing them at very low cost. Generic manufacturers present themselves as supporting the world’s poor by producing affordable medicine. Pharmaceuticals present themselves as providing necessary drug innovations, and claim that generic manufacturers make large profits.

There are also legal conflicts: patent law differs by country, despite the WTO’s efforts to harmonise it. As shown by the example of India, some countries have stricter patent laws than others, to prevent evergreening.

38

There appears to be a conflict between the interests of the pharmaceutical industry and public interest. Although the pharmaceutical industry proudly cites high figures for R&D and the discovery of new medicines, there is a debate on how much developing a new drug actually costs.

Research points out that most of pharmaceutical R&D creates minor variations on existing drugs, and that these variations often do not bring any. In fact, the European Medicines Agency was accused of doing Europe “a disservice by approving 74% of all new applications based on trials designed by the companies, while keeping data about efficacy safety secret”2. Further, the industry’s claim that the cost of a new drug discovery is $1.3 billion is heavily criticised, with an analysis claiming that it is only one quarter of that price, or $0.33 billion. In addition, the industry spends a lot of resources on marketing, which has been labelled as “the enemy of real innovation”3.

Further, there appears to be many conflicts of interest in drug development and licensing. As companies pay for their research through sales, they put huge pressures on doctors so they will prescribe their particular drug. In some cases, this has led to over-medicalising, or doctors having a bias towards a specific drug for reasons of personal interest rather than for the effectiveness of the drug. Some other examples are pharmaceuticals’ sponsorship of medical schools and nurse training, with influence on the curriculum, and various financial relationships between pharmaceuticals, and doctors, hospitals, and advisory boards.

Key questions: How can conflicts of interest in the pharmaceutical sector be prevented?

Should patent laws be harmonised globally, and if so, what should be the standards for drug patents?

How can we align the public interest and the interests of pharmaceuticals?

Who should finance the development of drugs?

What are the pros and cons of the patent model?

Would different types of medicine benefit from different kinds of financing, or should there be one financing model for all medicine?

Links for research: Research on bad practices of pharmaceuticals and policy in the EU (European Public Health Alliance, research made my UK Parliamentary Committee).

Analysis: Pharmaceutical research and development: what do we get for all that money?

Al-jazeera piece with experts “protecting patents or patients” from 2013.

Europe’s Zombie attack on affordable medicine.

Financing pharmaceutical innovation without patents.

5. Key actors The first key actor is the pharmaceutical companies who develop new medicine. They incur the high cost of innovation, and reap the benefits of selling patented medicine at a high price. They have well-developed marketing strategies and strong legal departments to defend their patents. A second and related actor is generic drug manufacturers, who produce generic versions of medicine once patents have expired, and sell them at a low price.

At the other end of the problem are patients who need the medicine, potentially to live. Although

39

some of these patients live in affluent countries where they receive good health care coverage, many live in developing countries and have little financial means.

From an institutional perspective, the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) play an important role globally. The WHO promotes international public health, and is concerned with access to medicines. The WTO supervises international trade, and attempts to liberalise it. It protects intellectual property but has included some provisions for certain products such as medicines, and in general is against monopolies.

On a European level, the institutions of the European Union, in particular the European Commission are important actors, in terms of research development, trade, and consumer protection. The European Medicines Agency is responsible for the protection and promotion of public health in the EU, through the evaluation and supervision of medicines. It provides marketing authorisations, plays a role in stimulating innovation in a pharmaceutical sector, and is home to the European medicines network. In addition, EU Member States are also actors in this issue, as patents are granted by sovereign states, and pharmaceutical companies established in Member States are subject to that state’s laws.

Research institutions, whether public or private (for example public universities), are important actors in R&D of drugs. Although private companies carry out the majority of drug development, some public-private partnerships and public research institutions are also involved.

Civil society organisations are very engaged in this issue, with different organisations tackling different aspects. Some notable examples are: Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), focused on procuring drugs for their humanitarian emergency operations The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, providing substantial funding for medicines The Access to Medicine Foundation, which published the Access to Medicine Index, measuring the pharmaceutical’s efforts to improve global access to medicine UNITAID, which uses innovative financing to improve access to medicine in poor countries.

Key questions: Which actor has the most decisional power?

Which actor is most affected by policy decisions?

Which actor can the EU mobilise or work with to implement possible changes?

What role should the government play in developing and approving medicine?

6. Measures in place The WTO, of which most of the world’s countries are members, administered the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which is effective since 1996.

This entails that all members of the WTO must recognise intellectual property rights. It includes some safeguards to make medicine more affordable, in particular parallel importation and compulsory licensing.

40

The EU funds a consortium called Access to Pharmaceuticals (ATP), whose mission is to promote Socially Responsible Licensing as a means to improve and ensure the availability of essential medicines in the developing world. The EU is also involved in a partnership with the European Pharmaceutical industry, called the Innovative Medicines Initiative. It is a large publicprivate partnership to develop innovative medicine, and make it accessible to patients.

The EU provides with substantial resources for Research and Innovation, nearly 80 billion euros through the Horizon 2020 programme. Health is one of the areas of the programme. One of the projects addresses neglected and emerging viruses.

One alternative method for funding pharmaceutical innovation is innovation inducement prizes.

These are cash-prizes given to those who successfully develop a solution to a particular innovation problem. In March 2014, a German pharmaceutical won a â‚Ź2 million inducement prize from the EU for innovative vaccine technology. Innovations that win these prizes cannot be patented.

UNITAID is an initiative for innovative financing for medicines for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. Their financing model is a levy on air tickets. They also supported the founding of the Medicine Patent Pool, a United Nations-backed organisation that “aims to improve access to appropriate, affordable HIV medicines and technologies for people living with HIV in developing countries�2. This is done by collecting relevant patents in a pool to facilitate licensing and product development. However, this patent is only for HIV treatment, and membership is voluntary.

The Health Impact Fund (HIF) is a proposal to find a market-based solution to the problems of innovation and access. It offers a new way to finance pharmaceutical innovation by offering a payfor-performance mechanism, which would incentivise the development and affordable delivery of new medicines. It will thus be able to achieve the twin goals of stimulating pharmaceutical innovation in the most important therapeutic areas and enabling widespread access. However, the HIF is only at the proposal stage, and is still in the process of establishing a pilot.

Links for research: TRIPS. Short debate by the World Trade Organisation on the International Property Access to Pharmaceutical, an EU Framework 7 Funded Project Health Impact Fund presented in a Ted talk.

Medicine patent pool presented in a Ted talk.

7. Key Facts and Figures The cost of discovering a new drug is $1.3 billion according to the industry, but $0.33 billion according to independent research.

1.3% of revenues are devoted to discovering new molecules, compared to 25% spent on promotion, which equals to a ratio of basic research to marketing of 1:19.

Tuberculosis, which is preventable and curable, has caused 1.5 million deaths in 2013. It is the infectious disease causing the most deaths worldwide after HIV. Return on investment in pharmaceutical innovation has declined from 10.5% in 2010 to 4.8% in 2013.

41

!

Links for research: The pharmaceutical industry and global health - facts and figures 2014, in particular p. 7 on key facts.

Measuring the return from pharmaceutical innovation 2013, Deloitte.

8. Conclusion This topic poses two main questions: how should pharmaceutical innovation be funded, and how can medicine be accessed by the greatest number of people? Each question has multiple aspects to consider, and some of the answers address both problems at once. Currently, the main funding mechanism for drug development is patents, and although widely successful in maintaining the large global pharmaceutical industry, it has been heavily criticised. This funding mechanism creates a tricky moral dilemma: how to balance intellectual property rights against the need for life-saving medicine? It is necessary to both understand the complexities of the current state of medicine innovation and access, and think creatively about potential new ways to address these vital issues. When Jonas Salk, the inventor of the Polio vaccine, was asked who owned the patent for it, he replied “Well, the people, I would say. There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?”

9. Essential Research Access to Medicine Index 2014 Report.

In this report, the most important sections to read are: the executive summary (pp. 10-14) and key findings (pp. 21-25).

Al-jazeera piece with experts “protecting patents or patients” from 2013 UNITAID innovative financing.

Research on bad practices of pharma and policy in the EU (European Public Health Alliance, research made my UK Parliamentary Committee) Analysis: Pharmaceutical research and development: what do we get for all that money?

42

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS (AFET) ! ! !

Europe in the world: As EU Member States have failed to act jointly in foreign conflicts at its borders, how should an effective reform of decision-making procedures be implemented within the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP)? !

!

!

!

!

!

by Louis Wouters (BE)

1. Video Links Robert Cooper, a special adviser to Catherine Ashton, reflecting on EU’s strengths, weaknesses and approach in regards with the CFSP The Swedish Institute of International Affairs with a recent debate on the key challenges of EU’s Foreign and Security Policy

2. Key terms Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP): A policy area created by the Maastricht Treaty with the task to formulate and implement a common European position on international issues and to assert its identity on the international scene.

Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP): An integral part of the CFSP and successor of the European Security and Defence Policy, that offers a framework to conduct operational missions in third countries.

Unanimity: A voting procedure under which agreement by all Member States is required for legislation to pass, and remains the main decision-making procedure in the area of the CFSP. State sovereignty: A political term indicating supreme authority of a state within its territory, meaning that the state is free from external control and thus has full right to govern itself.

Soft power: Refers to the ability to achieve one’s goals in international relations without military force but by persuasion and diplomacy, in contrast with hard power.

High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy: A post created by the Lisbon Treaty aiming to improve consistency, effectiveness and visibility of EU’s external actions and bearing the responsibility to conduct EU’s foreign policy.

3. Relevance and explanation of the topic

43

The Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) was created by the Maastricht Treaty as the successor of the European Political Cooperation (EPC). The transfer of competences to the EU-level was mainly to allow the Union to manage interstate dynamics, without the intention to deal with the outside world. However, since the late 90’s, the majority of Member States started to reconsider the use of the CFSP to pursue external objectives, redefining it from an

44

News website about EU’s Foreign Policy, recommended to check regularly to stay up to date.

1. Key Conflicts The main question that should firstly be dealt with is whether foreign policy should be addressed at the national or European level, or if there is a suitable middle-ground, also referred to as the intergovernmentalists vs supranationalists debate. The latter stresses the advantages of an integrated Union in which main competences are transferred to the EU-level.

According to supranationalists, speaking with one voice has made the EU a key player in various fields of world politics. On the contrary, intergovernmentalists argue that Member States are still the driving force behind integration and the main decision-makers.

Three reasons can be distinguished to explain the slow process of integration in the field of the CFSP. Firstly, the general nature of EU policies, often phrased in confusing terminology and stemming from the pressure to decide unanimously, leaves room for interpretation and as a result treaty provisions bind heads of states and governments less in this field. Secondly, the European Court of Justice, which has played an important role in furthering integration in other policy fields, still has no jurisdiction regarding the CFSP. In fact, the recently created function of High Representative of the Union has no political nor legal authority either. Lastly, we notice a lack of active support for specific policy initiatives, since Member States often use their role in other international fora as an excuse not to engage in EU's CFSP. Taking these potential areas for change into account, many wonder why the CFSP has not been transformed over the years. Some argue that a lack of institutional capacity on the EU level to deal with CFSP is a milestone round EU’s neck, while other state that the fact that EU institutions cannot sufficiently meet the needs of foreign policy, puts a break on potential change in this policy area.

This also raises the question concerning what role the EU should play in other international organisations, such as the UN Security Council or the G8. While some state that the EU should get voting rights alongside its Member States, others go even further and argue that it would be beneficial if the EU could represent its Member States to fulfil its external policy objectives.

The Lisbon Treaty replaced the co-decision procedure with the ordinary legislative procedure (OLP) in which qualified majority is the common voting procedure. Resultantly, critics point out that the use of unanimity in the CFSP is no longer the most preferred voting procedure, and hampers further cooperation and integration. Moreover, critics stress that some of the shortcomings in EU’s external policies stem from inherent difficulties to reach a consensus.

Reviewing the decision-making procedure of the CFSP might not only be favourable for the CFSP itself, but also have an impact on EU’s democratic deficit. Some people believe that a stronger CFSP is a way to build a stronger European identity and thus a way to reduce Europe’s democratic deficit, while others see the involvement of the European Parliament in the CFSP as a way to tackle Europe’s growing scepticism.

Over the last decade, the CFSP has proven in many cases to be ineffective when it comes to the use of military forces. The aforementioned Libya case revealed the internal

45

disagreements between pro-interventionists and their counterparts. Also, the French attempt to increase EU’s attention of the deterioration in Mali has demonstrated the limits of the CFSP. In order to overcome its limitations of acting as a military power, the EU engaged in capacitybuilding and training missions of military forces of third nations. Nevertheless, critics have questioned whether the EU should act as a hard or soft power. The latter has proven to be effective in Iran, where EU’s High Representative played a leading role in resuming talks on nuclear issues. However, although essential as a first step, the daunting threats of military escalation and regional conflicts ask sometimes for a more robust military response which the EU lacks under the current CFSP. That is why many stress the need for Europe to create smart strategies, combining the tools of both hard and soft power.

Key questions: To which extent should the EU conduct the foreign and security policy of its Member States?

Nowadays, unanimity is the main decision-making procedure under the CFSP, is this still the best procedure, and if not, what should the procedure look like in order to make the CFSP more efficient and effective?

Links for research: The Guardian on the current decision-making procedure of the CFSP CFSP analysis after The Lisbon Treaty: “Who answers the phone in Europe?”

The Council on Foreign Affairs on “Soft vs Hard power: Get Smart”.

1. Key Actors As the CFSP is largely intergovernmental, Member States are the main decisions-makers and are responsible for implementing the decisions made at the supranational level. The Council of Ministers and the European Council play the defining role in formulating CFSP of the Union. In the European Council, heads of states and governments define general guidelines and priorities that shape the CFSP, based upon strategic interests and objectives of the Union.

It is thus the European Council, and not the Commission, as is the case for external actions and the dimensions of internal policies, who has the right of initiative for the CFSP. In a next phase, the formal mechanics of CFSP decisions are carried out by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Member States in the Council of Ministers. Remarkably, neither the Court of Justice nor the European Parliament have official jurisdiction in the CFSP. Although the role of the High Representative, currently Federica Mogherini, is ambiguous in the Lisbon Treaty, her responsibilities are threefold: contributing to the development of the CFSP; enforcing the adopted decisions; and, representing the Union in external relations. With the support of the European External Actions Service (EEAS) and the Political and Security Committee (PSC), she is then responsible for implementing the decisions of the Council of Ministers.

Furthermore, the European Defence Agency (EDA) aims to improve Member States’ military capacities by setting up common objectives and managing research activities and programmes to achieve these objectives. Besides that, the EDA seeks to

46

strengthen the technological and industrial base and harmonise the operational needs of Member States. However, for many Member States, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) is still the primary security partner. Although it seems not always possible in practice, the EU and NATO attempt to play a complimentary and mutually reinforcing role.

Key questions: Bearing in mind the main actors contributing to the CFSP, should any other institution that is currently left out be involved in the process of setting up and conducting EU’s foreign policy?

Regarding the security challenges we face in the 21st century, should more competences be transferred to the European level in order to respond with a more common approach?

Links for research: EurActiv on “Mogherini as EU High Representative: How can she redefine the role?”

Academic analysis of the role of the Member States in the CFSP Europedia on decision-making in CFSP matters The Economist on “The low ambitions of the EU in Libya”.

1. Measures in place The aforementioned guidelines, set by the European Council, are translated into operational actions and positions. Article 28 and 29 of the TEU articulate in detail what is expected from Member States and seem to be legally binding according to the choice of words, such as “[…] the Council shall adopt the necessary decision. They shall lay down their objectives, scope, the means […]”. However, they are only highly conditional from a political point of view since the diverging approaches of the Member States often result in non-binding, lowest common denominator politics. As a result, in practice, the range of positions have been restricted to the adoption of sanctions and restrictive measures against terrorist organisations, individuals and regimes, such as recently against Russia. Also, actions have been limited to appointing EU special representatives and to launching crisis management operations. The latter includes both preventive strategies and post-conflict management, such as the EU mission in Kosovo. Nonetheless, thanks to the nature of foreign policy, even symbolic actions or mere positions weigh already heavily in on interstate relations, explaining partly the current state of EU’s foreign policy.

Thanks to the Berlin Plus Agreement, a formal agreement between the EU and NATO aiming to tackle the concerns over the duplication of assets and overlapping memberships, the EU is allowed to make use of NATO assets and capabilities during its crisis management operations. The last category of the CFSP contains conflict prevention, peace building and mediation, of which EU’s Early Warning System is a good example, aiming to address conflict risks before they lead to violence. Besides this, one of the main aims of the CFSP is to strengthen systematic cooperation between the Member States.

Key questions:

47

Taking into account that securing EU citizens has become a global challenge, should the EU strengthen its cooperation with third partners and should EU’s mandate in international organisations be redefined to increase efficiency?

Regarding the limits of the modus operandi of the CFSP, should the scope and range of the tools be widened and broadened to respond more effectively to the current challenges?

Links for research: Interactive map on EU’s ongoing operations (at the very end of this document) C. Portela on the EU’s use of ‘targeted’ sanctions, especially Chapter 4 An analysis of EU-NATO relations The Foreign Policy Association on the increasing role of sanctions in the CFSP.

1. Conclusion Already during the 1950’s, foreign policy in Europe has been a sensitive issue, a field in which heads of states were reluctant to transfer competences to the supranational level. In 1992, the Maastricht Treaty announced an about-turn in the area of foreign policy.

Nevertheless, policy expansions have become less common since mid-2000, and integration has slowed down since then.

The EU and its Member States need to take a stance upon the direction of the CFSP. Further integration of foreign policy might be against the will of many EU citizens, while reducing EU competences might eradicate the stake of its Member States on the international level completely. On a global level, world powers have to take the EU as a whole into account, while the power of many individual Member States is almost negligible. It is therefore imperative to address the extent to which the EU should have a say in national foreign policy.

Is it feasible to decide upon a case-by-case basis, or should the exact level of integration in each field be fixed? After balancing the pro’s and con’s, one needs to ask if the EU is seen as the appropriate institution to conduct foreign policy, and if so, in what manner the EU should do so: as a hard or soft power? In which international organisations should the EU represent its Member States? Which procedure is preferred to decide upon its mandate: is unanimity still the best decision-making procedure, and if not, what should the procedure look like in order to make the CFSP more efficient and effective? Lastly, concerning EU’s democratic deficit, which institutions should be involved in the process?

Links for research: Civitas with a EU Factsheet on the CFSP Carnegie Europe on “A window of Opportunity to Upgrade EU Foreign Policy” Fair Observer on “Prospects for a Common European Foreign Policy”

2. Essential links Introduction to the CFSP Jacques Delors Institute with a policy paper on “Will Europe ever agree on the use of military force?”

48

Carnegie Europe on 10 Key Challenges of a European Global Strategy S. Islam on “Why Global Europe must change in an “anxious age”

49

COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY, RESEARCH AND ENERGY (ITRE) !

! !

Balancing the inherent costs of energy: With the EU’s 2030 framework for climate and energy policies being criticised as unambitious, what steps should the EU take to ensure the transition to a more secure and sustainable energy system while maintaining overall economic competitiveness?

by Isabel Cantalapiedra (ES) 1. Video links: Amory Lovins, energy efficiency.

Former Commissioner for Climate Action Hedegaard on the 2030 Strategy.

Jos Delbeke, EU Director-General for Climate Action.

2. Key terms: Energy system: Combination of networks and methods of extraction, conversion, storage and distribution for the supply of energy.

Energy competitiveness: State of an energy market in which prices are sufficiently low, or quality is high enough to be successful relative to other energy markets. The Green Paper includes the stimulation of investment in clean energy and energy efficiency as means to generate new jobs and support growth and competitiveness.

Europe 2030: The 2030 Climate and Energy Framework, proposed by the European Commission, aims to make the EU’s energy market more competitive, secure and sustainable, setting a greenhouse gas emissions reduction target of 40% compared to the levels in 1990, and a target of at least 27% for renewable energy and energy savings. The European Council endorsed this target, which is binding at EU level but not nationally.

Energy efficiency: The goal of energy efficiency is to manage and restrain energy consumption, by delivering the same service with less energy input, or more services with equal energy input. This can be achieved by development of new technologies, or by adapting consumer behaviour. For example by replacing an incandescent lamp with a compact fluorescent lamp, which uses much less energy.

Energy dependence: The extent to which a region is reliant on imported energy supplies. For a country to be completely independent in the field of

50

energy, it would have to produce, transport and transform all the energy it consumes.

Security of supply: World energy markets are vulnerable to geo-political turmoil and natural disasters, which can affect their energy security, that is, their ability to maintain an adequate energy supply relative to demand, with no disruptions or intermittencies in the flow.

Energy mix: The different energy sources that make up the total energy consumption of a certain region. The energy available for final consumption is called gross inland consumption:

Links for research: 2030 framework for climate and energy policies.

The European Commission on energy efficiency.

International Energy Agency, “Energy Efficiency Market Report”, 2014.

Eurostat energy dependence tables, charts and maps.

3. Relevance and explanation of the topic: Every part of our society depends on energy. The future of transport, households and industry is reliant on energy policies, yet economic and environmental issues are exerting pressure on the sustainment of the energy market. The EU has committed to limiting atmospheric warming to below 2ºC in 2050, but the current climate and energy policies are still insufficient to ensure supply and move towards a modern and low-carbon energy system.

Energy consumption today is largely based on the use of fossil fuels: coal has been the cheapest, but has contributed to rising carbon emissions; oil imports are vulnerable to political turmoil in the regions of production, which has lead to fluctuation of prices; natural gas (interactive map) currently accounts for almost a quarter of the energy consumed in the EU, yet the pipelines needed for its transportation also carry political drawback, as in the case of Russia’s supplies to Europe. Nuclear power is deemed untrustworthy after the accident in Japan, and the impact of renewables in overall consumption is still minimal. Fossil fuels (excluding natural gas) account for 51.3% of total consumption in the EU, while nuclear power, natural gas and renewable sources account for 13.5%, 23.3% and 11.0%, respectively.

51

The EU has established itself as an international leader in climate policies. Future energy policies in the EU, including the 2030 Framework, strive for a more competitive Europe as a driving force for growth and job creation, yet they have been deemed unambitious by international observers and environmentalists, as illustrated in Chart 1:

Chart 1: Projection of the level of Greenhouse Gas emissions in the European Union. The pink line shows what the Member States are in track for; and the green line, the level of emissions with the target.

Part of why it has been considered unambitious stems from the lack of legally binding targets at national level. The UK, for example, has effectively lobbied against this, as it wants to be free to meet the 40% reduction in emissions target through other technologies: capturing carbon from coal plants and new nuclear reactors. More criticism comes from those that have observed even more ambitious domestic targets in certain European countries: for example, Sweden has set the target to achieve a 40% reduction in GHG emissions, at least 50% of energy consumption coming from renewables, and 20% more efficient use by 2020.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) on the contrary, judges the EU targets as challenging, given that the electricity and transport sectors still rely heavily on fossil fuels, thus making it more difficult to move towards a low-carbon energy market.

Key questions: How can the EU address growing concerns of consumers on energy prices?

How can the EU tackle the lack of investment? How can it guarantee certainty for investors and minimise risk?

What can be done to the current policy framework and energy model to improve sustainability and competitiveness?

Should the EU re-evaluate its 2030 targets and push towards legally binding targets at Member States’ level?

Links for research:

52

Criticism to the 2030 Framework.

Overview of the European energy system, January 2015.

The European Commission reviewing energy challenges in Europe, 2013.

The Guardian on the UK’s internal binding target to halve its carbon emissions by 2025.

4. Key conflicts: Europe’s struggle lays in the array of national priorities, as wild differences in prices and their respective energy mix are a major concern for Member States. Germany has rushed to abandon nuclear power, betting on wind and solar energy, but still relying on domestic coal.

France keeps its nuclear energy and imported fossil fuels, whilst banning shale-gas exploration. Meanwhile, the UK supports shale-gas and nuclear energy, and is still behind on the implementation of renewables. An EU-wide binding target rather than an individual target for each Member State grants flexibility, yet makes it harder to monitor the advances of each Member State towards those common goals.

The creation of an internal energy market is one of the EU’s main objectives, as a means to boost competitiveness by offering consumers a wider range of suppliers and more reasonable prices. This would allow small suppliers to enter the market, and finally establish renewables at the heart of the European energy mix. If they are willing to move towards supranational coordination of energy policies, though, Member States will have to hugely invest in crossborder interconnections and infrastructure at a time when some advocate that the future of energy policies and the key to competitiveness lays in local and regional self-reliance, so as to avoid the costs of energy distribution. The latter, however, would make it more difficult to ensure coordinated supply of future demand, energy security, and diversification of suppliers across Europe.

Despite the domestic long-term trend to push towards more investment in renewables and reduce energy imports, the EU spent €500 billion on energy imports in 2012 alone. Moreover, the shale gas revolution poses a challenge to the potential increase in investments into renewables. If European countries were to import shale gas, dependency on Russia would decrease, but overall dependency of supply would only shift towards the US as a net exporter. However, European countries could develop shale gas extraction themselves to become more energy independent; for example, Estonia’s energy sector relies heavily on oil shale production, whilst Poland’s shale gas reservoirs could make it self-sufficient. Other EU Member States, such as France or Germany, have banned the practice, as it would still mean dependency on fossil fuels instead of development of new renewables.

Climate Policies, namely the 2020 Strategy and the 2030 Framework, have become more relevant in the debate on competitiveness. The energy prices in the EU quadruple those in the US, and have made industries reluctant to work towards the use of more renewables, despite the European Commission’s suggestion that increasing energy prices could be mitigated by decreasing energy intensity and investing in energy efficiency. Undeniably, rising prices have an impact on consumers too, who might be more concerned with the cost of investing in long-term energy efficiency and renewables and prefer to reap the benefits of cheap prices now. They are faced

53

with energy bills that vary between 7% and 17% of household expenditure. These high prices reflect a growing demand for resources, but are also the consequence of the costs linked to EU’s import dependency and an ageing and insufficient infrastructure that makes distribution more difficult.

Subsidies and investments play a big role as well. According to the European Commission, one trillion Euros is needed by 2020 to ensure security of supply and diversification of sources, cleaner energies and competitive prices, yet the lack of direction of new policies is a major source of uncertainty for long-term investors. In 2011, 77% of available subsidies were directed towards fossil fuels and nuclear power, whilst renewables got the remaining 23%. Consequently, there is still an economic incentive to maintaining the use of fossil fuels.

Public investments on energy efficiency have increased, with improvements on space and water heating, lighting and appliances in residential buildings. On the other hand, and due to the economic crisis, private investments have hit historically low levels. There are concerns that policy frameworks result in energy investments being misplaced and misallocated.

Some criticise the aforementioned large subsidies that fossil fuels receive as compared to nonfossil fuels, whilst others argue that subsidies for primitive green technology –such as the current solar panel generation– have been a mistake, and that they should have been invested in more infrastructure for electrical interconnectors, or support research for new kinds of renewables.

All in all, it is an issue of global leadership and competitiveness. The EU has long had the initiative to implement climate and clean energy policies, as opposed to other developed regions. By setting ambitious targets, it might exert influence on others to fight climate change, ahead of the UN Climate talks to be held in Paris, December 2015. On the other hand, the EU might end up being a lone front-runner with no backers.

Key questions: What measures should be taken to enhance competitiveness in the field of energy sources? Should these measures be taken at a European level or regionally?

Consequently, should the EU keep moving towards a common integrated energy market?

Should the EU work towards energy security by becoming more independent, or by ensuring diversification of suppliers?

Could investment in energy efficiency counterbalance the uneven distribution of subsidies for renewable energy, and reverse the trend of increasing prices?

Links for research: Euractiv on energy subsidies.

Business Insider on storage of renewables.

International Energy Agency on the benefits of energy efficiency.

5. Key actors: EU Institutions: The European Council agreed to the 2030 Strategy on October 23rd, 2014. Since the targets are not binding at national level, governments of Member

54

States will have to make sure the reforms they implement are in line with what the European Commission proposed.

The Directorate-General for Energy is in charge of developing and implementing an energy policy at the European level, under the guidance of Energy Commissioner Arias Cañete.

The Energy Community consists of the EU Member States and the following countries: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, FYR of Macedonia, Kosovo*, Moldova, Montenegro, Serbia and Ukraine. The Energy Community uphold the Article 194 of the Lisbon Treaty by extending the internal energy market of the EU to neighbouring countries to ensure security of energy supply and interconnection of energy networks. This is achieved by the existence of a legally binding framework under which the members of the Energy Community must adopt EU legislation.

The Agency for Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) established by Regulation (EC)713/2009 of the Third Energy Package, coordinates national energy regulators, who carry out their work independently from governments in every Member State. The overall mission of ACER is to work towards a single market for natural gas and electricity.

Internal agents: Given the disparities between Member States in terms of their own energy mix and consumption, not all of them will readily agree to adopt their national agendas to the 2030 targets. Others, like the UK, effectively lobbied against these targets to be binding at a national level.

The energy lobby is formed by representatives of energy industries –such as BP and Shell– to influence the regulations and laws that will shape the European energy market.

Consumers will ultimately have an impact on energy demand, thus influencing energy prices.

External agents: The shale gas revolution in the United States is turning this country into a net exporter of gas. The energy price gap (page 12) between the US and Europe as a result will have an impact on European manufacturers’ competitiveness. According to the European Commission, this high consumption of gas in the US has freed exports of US coal to Europe, resulting in an increase of EU coal consumption and imports by 2% and almost 9% in the first eleven months of 2012.

Russia has maintained its position as the main supplier of natural gas and crude oil. In 2012, 33.7% of the EU-28’s imports of crude oil, 25.9% of imports of solid fuels, and 32.0% of imports of natural gas were from Russia. Some Member States, namely Lithuania, Estonia, Finland and Latvia depend by 100% on only one Russian gas supplier, and often on only one supply route. However, after the South Stream cancellation, European demand for Russian gas has decreased.

Links for research: The Guardian lobbying in the EU (read up until section on tobacco) The Guardian on fossil fuel groups lobbying in the 2030 target discussions.

Euractiv on EU plans to reduce Russian energy dependence.

55

The Economist on European energy security and dependency Euobserver on fracking and its implications

6. Measures in place: Energy efficiency: The EU has already started implementing measures towards the 2020 targets. For instance, the legally binding Energy Efficiency Directive, which calls upon Member States to use energy more efficiently, from production mechanisms to management of consumption, e.g.: consumers will be able to access data about their individual metering for free, SMEs will be incentivised to undergo audits, and the public sector in Member States will be encouraged to purchase efficient buildings and services. Member States also have to draw up action plans every three years to outline their aims towards energy efficiency, and produce annual reports on their progress.

Working towards the 2020 targets, additionally, the EU is planning to introduce smart grids and energy meters to monitor energy flow and match energy supply and demand accordingly. According to the EC, smart metering and smart grids could reduce emissions in the EU by 9%, and decrease annual household consumption by a similar amount.

The Directive 2010/30/EC of products depending on the consumption of energy, not only household appliances but also extended to commercial and industrial sectors. It applies to energy-related products that might not consume energy themselves, like window glazing.

Research and innovation: The European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan) is the main pillar through which the European Union supports research and innovation towards a low-carbon model of the energy system, and how to make those clean energies cost-efficient and competitive. It promotes cooperation between the EU, Member States, the industry sector and research institutions, and includes various initiatives in its plan of action. Under its Industrial Initiatives, the European Electricity Grid Initiative looks at the development of electricity networks in Europe, focusing on system

56

innovation rather than technology innovation, and working towards a low-carbon, panEuropean electricity system.

Supply and distribution: The Third Energy Package was adopted in 2009, and it takes action in main areas of the energy market legislation. For security of supply, it separates suppliers and generators from the transmission networks. Through unbundling, it ensures that energy companies have access to infrastructure, and that the operator of the network does not interfere with energy transmission. It has also established independent national regulators and the ACER, which ensures coordination and cooperation between national regulators, and works towards the smooth functioning of the internal energy market. Lastly, the European Network for Transmission System Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E) and the European Network for Transmission System Operators for Gas (ENTSO-G) coordinate the planning of investments in new networks, and development of transmission capabilities.

Through the Third Energy Package, the European Commission aimed for a successful completion of the internal energy market, yet some national legislations have fallen short of the requirements set by the Package. As of September 2014, all but 2 Member States have failed to transpose the Electricity Directive 2009/72/EC and the Gas Directive 2009/73/EC, set for a proper functioning of the electricity and gas markets.

Key questions: How should the EC ensure effective implementation and application of the Third Energy Package requirements?

How should the EU design its technological and research policies so as to boost innovation?

What other measures can be taken to achieve user integration?

Links for research: Reform of the German Renewable Act in 2014 (especially interesting the section in “Opportunities that were missed�).

Review of the SET-Plan Implementation for the period 2010-2012.

Definition, functionalities and benefits of smart grids.

Consumer rights and protection.

7. Baseline perspective The EU has been feeling the consequences of increasing global demand, especially from emerging economies. Political turmoil in regions like the Middle East, and the conflict Ukraine-Russia have put in danger the security of supply for certain countries that fully depend on these imports. In addition, the production of unconventional gas in North America and the concerns over nuclear power have set a debate on diversification of energy supply.

The EU has taken steps towards reaching its 2020 and 2030 targets, integrating the electricity and gas markets into a single market, and working towards the climate and energy efficiency and sustainability goals. Progress is evident, yet challenges abound.

Confronted by such a dynamic landscape, it is very difficult to predict how the EU’s energy market will develop. The EU interacts and evolves within the wider

57

international context, and future developments will likely depend on the rest of the world as well. However, changes at national and European level will surely have an impact in the future position of Europe in the global market, especially with regard to the energy policies.

The following section aims to unfold this situation, illustrating the baseline projection of the current circumstances and the impact of the measures in place.

The EU: Current trends remain unchanged. As policy frameworks haven’t been redesigned, economic growth is still low, prices are on the rise, and an integrated EU network and internal market are yet to be completed: electricity and gas, consequently, remain confined to national grids.

The targets: The International Energy Agency has analysed current national ambitions in the EU, suggesting that there will be a shortfall in meeting the 2020 targets. The European Commission estimates that the EU could achieve up to 19% energy savings, whereas meeting the 20% energy efficiency target will depend on further implementation of energy efficiency policies. All in all, meeting the 2020 targets remains a challenge.

Energy mix: Global demand for energy is on the rise, with oil accounting for 30% of the world’s energy mix, and gas providing a fifth. Domestic fossil fuel will continue to decline, and gas imports will increase between 2020 and 2030, yet oil imports will remain stable even in a decarbonisation scenario. Growing use of renewables will start to make an impact, but their shares in the energy mix for 2020 and 2030 will still remain minimal, compared to other energy sources.

Gas: The EU is still importing most of the energy it consumes, although it has reformed its gas emergency policies in the aftermath of the Ukraine-Russia crisis, and response to disruptions has partially improved. However, reverse flows are not available at all interconnections, with some pipelines even facing congestion, and some countries are still dependent in a sole supplier or a sole route of supply.

Shale gas: Following the rise in global demand for energy, most of the US liquefied natural gas (LNG) is contracted by Asian markets, and has limited capacity or incentive to serve EU markets in the medium term. The Netherlands and Denmark have seen a fast decline in gas production, and some Member States have banned exploration of shale gas. However, the lack of policies suggests that energy from unconventional sources would contribute to meeting the security goals of Member States, as well as the sharing of experience from North America to Europe.

Oil: As for oil, European production has been falling at a faster rate than demand. In addition, the EU processing capacity has declined, and thus the EU in increasingly dependent on oil imports and therefore more exposed to supply disruptions. Oil price decline is due to the shale gas revolution, which means that the EU could save billions on its imports. In contrast, increased demand for cheap oil would make the transition away from fossil fuels and dependency on Russia more difficult.

Power plants: Nuclear and coal plants are ageing, and half of them are likely to shut down in the coming decades. In the long run, a decrease in coal capacity can be foreseen, as the outlook for carbon capture and storage remains blurry. While coal has

58

limited prospects in any ambitious climate policy, it does have some security benefits, given the abundance and diversification of its sources. There is a debate, therefore, between modernising these power plants in the medium run to prevent the loss of Europe’s energy generation diversity, and working towards the transition to renewables.

Innovation: Innovation systems have not yet fully emerged, and the slow implementation of smart grids and meters has failed to encourage demand-side management by customers, thus leaving uncertainty for private investment and public support.

Energy efficiency and competitiveness: As the retail prices have increased, energy efficiency also increases as a technical response to such constraint, and might also reduce concerns about the security of supply. Meeting EU-wide targets with different national instruments requires great coordination capabilities, which have failed to emerge, leaving Europe in an unfavourable competitive position in relation to other markets, such as those in emerging economies.

Key questions: What coherent energy policy would prepare the EU best for the challenges outlined in this scenario?

1. Conclusion: The competitiveness of Europe’s energy market depends on the capacity of the industry to innovate and adapt to new trends. As traditional energy resources are scarce in the European Union, the idea of leading cheap energy production could soon be abandoned, in an effort to gear the output towards least exploited and consumed forms of energy. The question here is the choice between quality competition and price competition, and which one should motivate future policies to enhance competitiveness.

Following a model towards more independence, the challenges ahead are based on the insufficient infrastructure, the decrease in investments and the price rise as a result of a lowcarbon energy mix, higher security of supply and less exposure to risks. Energy efficiency is not a panacea for all these concerns, but it can play a vital role as a response to high costs and decrease demand overall.

Europe’s energy market could be fixed so that gas and electricity could be traded and distributed across the Union, and waste of energy and the risk of shortage of supply in certain regions would be minimised. Building more cross-border pipelines should be encouraged to connect customers to the energy sources, exploitation of shale gas could be permitted in those regions to which it is indigenous to minimise dependence, and smart grids and meters would make the system much more modern and user-friendly.

The completion of the internal energy market and the 2030 targets becoming binding nationally could display a more coherent energy policy in the European Union, which would consequently lead to more private investment and a boost in competitiveness.

59

However, Member States are not entirely willing to give up on the flexibility that nonnationally-binding targets provide. The ultimate focus is how to boost energy competitiveness in the European Union, and what measures should be taken to prevent ambitious climatechange policies from becoming ever more expensive and unachievable.

1. Essential links: Outline of all energy related topics by the European Commission.

Development of energy policies and the internal energy market.

The EU Green Paper: 2030 framework for Climate and Energy Policies

60

COMMITTEE ON CIVIL LIBERTIES, JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS I (LIBE I) !

! !

Europe as a safe harbour: Given the rising number of those fleeing conflicts worldwide, what coherent direction should the EU’s refugee and asylum policy pursue to account for burden-sharing amongst Member States whilst upholding humanitarian principles?

by Tuna Dökmeci (TR) 1. Video Links News Report “UN Urges EU to Take Refugees Despite Anti-Migrant Protest”.

2. Key Terms Asylum: Asylum is the protection granted by a sovereign state to someone in whose country of origin there is war or violence, or there is a threat of being persecuted.

Asylum-seeker: An asylum seeker is someone who applies for asylum in another country on the grounds that he is in danger in his country of origin.

Illegal immigrant: An illegal immigrant migrates across national borders in a way that would violate the laws of the country of destination or stays in a country without a permit for residence. An illegal immigrant can also be someone who has applied for asylum but his or her application has been denied.

Non-refoulement: Non-refoulement, French for “not pushing back” is a principle of international law since the Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees, and foresees that no state should return an asylum seeker to their country of origin if this would place their life in danger.

3. Relevance and explanation of the topic The idea of a common European asylum policy started back in 1990 with the Dublin Convention, yet the inability to deal with the increasing number of asylum seekers reveals that much needs to be done. The increasing number of conflict regions highlighted by the Syrian civil war and more recently by the terrorist organisation Islamic State (IS) has resulted in a sharp increase in the number of asylum applications EU Member States receive. In 2013, EU Member States received more than 400,000 asylum applications, an increase of some 30 per cent compared to 2012. This is the first time since the end of the Cold War that so many people have asked for legal protection on the grounds of political persecution in their countries of origin.

While the European Union and its Member States have recognised the right to asylum, in practice Europe is anything but a safe harbour. As the accident in Lampedusa in October 2013, where more than 300 refugees lost their lives while trying to cross the Mediterranean, showed, the way to reach Europe itself can be very dangerous.

61

Lampedusa made big news, but the real tragedy is that this is an every day happening on a smaller scale; only in 2014, 3.000 people have died while attempting to cross the Mediterranean and reach Europe. And even if they reach the continent, the chances that they will be granted asylum, or even a quick procedure of decision are low. There are continuous reports of denials of access to territory at EU borders, excessive use of detention, and prosecution for illegal entry. The procedure of applying and getting a decision for an asylum application vary from country to country and it takes a very long time in certain countries. The European Union, just like all countries where the rule of law applies has committed itself to quick trial and an effective remedy, but the length of bureaucratic procedures asylum seekers must go through and the delay of a decision raise questions whether this principle is applied to such a vulnerable community from a different country of origin or not. Until a decision is reached, asylum seekers mostly stay in refugee camps, as they cannot legally reside and work. In many EU countries, the bad conditions of overcrowded camps in terms of health, hygiene and security have been criticised by many human rights organisations and the UNHCR (United Nations Refugee Agency.)

The current trend also causes tensions in many Member States. In many European countries, there are anti-migrant protests going on, and far right parties and organisations gaining in popularity.

Many believe that immigrants are a great cause of financial burden to their countries, or fear an Islamisation of Europe as a result of refugees arriving to Europe from Muslim countries. The tension does not limit itself to peoples of the Member States, but exists also between the Member States as countries that constitute the external borders of Europe such as Greece, Malta, Spain and Italy claim that much of the burden is left to them and that other countries in Europe ought to do more.

62

Key questions: Should the EU provide more secure ways of arriving to the Schengen Zone? If so, how should this be done?

What can the European Union do to facilitate and speed-up the processing of asylum demands?

What could be done to improve the standards in refugee camps?

How should the EU and Member States respond to the anti-immigrant protests, the socalled fear of “Islamisation of Europe” and rise of popularity of anti-immigrant parties and organisations?

Links for research: Deutsche Welle “Europe’s Overcrowded Refugee Camps Receive Plodding Overhaul”.

Deutsche Welle “EU needs to rethink its refugee policy” Human Rights Watch “No Easy Fix for Europe’s Asylum Policy” The Telegraph on the Pegida protests in Germany

4. Key Conflicts The European Union’s common asylum policy guidelines are mostly stated in the Dublin Regulation. The regulation states that asylum seekers can only apply for asylum to one EU country and that this needs to be the country where they first enter the EU. This causes much of the burden to be left to the border countries of the EU, namely Malta, Spain, Greece and Italy whose governments constantly call for a fairer allocation of immigrants. These countries have been criticised for delays in processing applications, not being able to provide the refugees with medical care, food, and accommodation and constantly call for the principle of solidarity to be applied. These countries on the Southern and Southeastern borders are experiencing pressure due to the number of illegal immigrants arriving, and also due to the weakness in their laws and their systems. However, Northern and Western European states actually receive the highest number of asylum applications; 64% of the asylum applications are to four countries: Germany, France, United Kingdom and Sweden.

63

The European Union has committed itself to basic human rights through the European Charter of Human Rights and the Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees. Although during the last 15 years much has been done to create a common asylum policy, asylum and immigration laws vary from one country to another and some, such as those of Italy and Greece, pose a problem as they imply a violation of basic principles of international law such as the right to nonrefoulement and asylum. EU legislation in general also faces the same criticism as national legislation does as it only allows asylum applications upon arrival to the European territories, meaning that it does not leave any other choice but to migrate illegally. This is done to avoid asylum-shopping, but it results in many people choosing illegal and mostly dangerous routes to come to Europe. Many of these people are thus treated as illegal immigrants and being denied access to EU territories.

As mentioned, the common asylum policy of the EU has gone through many improvements and revision during the last 15 years. The process started as a result of common policies appearing in the 1990s as the creation of Schengen Zone removed internal borders and therefore border controls within the Schengen Zone. The EU has set up a common policy on asylum so that unsuccessful asylum seekers cannot make a new application in another country and have to apply in the country where they entered the Schengen Zone. This common policy began with the Dublin Convention in 1990, which was revised two times in 2003 and then in 2008, creating the EURODAC and Frontex. However, critics of the policy claim that most of these measures had the sole intention of increasing monitoring and border security and, by doing so, building a fortress around the continent and not so much in order to provide security to those in need. On the other hand, some politicians and seemingly a part of the European people claim that Europe is doing enough as the German Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière stated by saying “We can't solve all the world's poverty problems in our country."

Key questions: How can the European Union revise its policies to better respond to the current increase of asylum-seekers arriving at its borders?

Is Europe doing enough in order to provide for people in need of protection?

Should the EU accept more refugees or take measures to reduce the number of asylumseekers?

How can the EU adopt a fairer common asylum policy and cope with the tensions between the Member States?

Links for research: Comparative Study of Immigration Laws, 2009.

Handbook on European Law relating to Asylum, Borders and Immigration, Edition 2014.

Der Spiegel “Asylum Policy and Treatment of Refugees in the European Union”

5. Key Actors Member States: Although a Common European Asylum System exists, immigration law varies from one country to another and it is up to each country’s legislative organ to adopt and reform their jurisdiction in accordance with international law and European directives.

European Commission: The European Commission (EC) is the main executive body of the European Union and it is the EC preparing the directives such as the Qualifications Directive and Asylum Procedures Directive.

64

UNHCR: The refugee agency of the United Nations, the UNHCR UN refugee agency follows EU asylum law and policy very closely. UNHCR’s Europe Bureau collaborates with EU institutions in Brussels and maintains liaison offices in Malta and Poland, which deal respectively with the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) and Frontex, the EU’s external border agency.

European Court of Justice (ECJ): The ECJ is the highest court of the European Union on the matters of the EU law. As principle of non-refoulement and the right to asylum are recognised by the EU law, the rulings of the ECJ on the right to asylum relate to the transfer of asylum seekers in the state responsible for examining their application, to the conditions for granting and withdrawing refugee and subsidiary protection status, and to the transposition of directives in national law.

Frontex: Established in 2004, Frontex coordinates and collaborates with the national border controllers of the bordering countries of the EU to prevent illegal immigration.

Countries of origin: By far, the most refugees come from Syria, followed by Russia, Afghanistan, Serbia, Pakistan, Kosovo, Somalia and Eritrea.

European Asylum Support Offices: Established in 2010, European Asylum Support Offices seek to provide asylum seekers with information and facilitate experience exchange between asylum seekers and also between the Member States.

6. Measures in place Dublin Regulation/Dublin III: The Dublin Convention was originally adopted in 1990 and came into force in 1997. A revision was made in 2003, called Dublin II and the latest version is referred to either as Dublin Regulation or Dublin III. The aim of this regulation, which can be considered the core of EU law concerning asylum seekers and refugees, is to prevent an asylum seeker from applying to several countries and choosing the Member State where he would like to live in.

EURODAC: Established by the Dublin Regulation, EURODAC is a European data bank of fingerprints where the fingerprints of all asylum seekers are saved and shared with all Member States. By doing so, it prevents an asylum seeker whose application was received and not yet evaluated or rejected to apply to another country in the EU. Asylum Procedures Directive: The Asylum Procedures Directive sets up common rules and standards regarding border controls and treatment of demands that are not well-founded in order to facilitate the processing of asylum demands and make the procedures more efficient and quicker.

Qualifications Directive: The Qualifications Directive establishes standards as regards to who can be accepted as an asylum-seeker.

Links for research: Summary of European asylum policies.

65

7. Legal References Article 80 of Lisbon Treaty: “The policies of the Union set out in this Chapter and their implementation shall be governed by the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility, including its financial implications, between the Member States.”

EU Charter of Human Rights: Binding for all EU Member States since the Treaty of Lisbon.

Article 18: “The right to asylum shall be guaranteed with due respect for the rules of the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and the Protocol of 31 January 1967 relating to the status of refugees and in accordance with the Treaty establishing the European Community.

Article 19: “1. Collective expulsions are prohibited.

2. No one may be removed, expelled or extradited to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Article 4: Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial.

8. Conclusion Deaths at the Mediterranean, overcrowded refugee camps, delays in processing asylum applications and tensions between the Member States are some of the most common consequences of the EU’s inadequate asylum policy. While a relatively small part of asylum seekers apply to European Union countries, the EU fails to provide these people with protection and security.

Differences between the immigration laws of different Member States cause a discrepancy between the numbers of accepted asylum applications. For many asylum seekers, the process takes a very long time and forces them to stay in refugee camps, most of which are in very bad conditions. As for those who are accepted as refugees, there is a so-called “asylum lottery” meaning that they have no choice of country that they wish to reside in, which is problematic considering that some Member States’ immigration laws are far from providing refugees with security. If the EU wishes to fulfil principles such as basic human rights, right to asylum and nonrefoulement, it needs to reform its policies and measures, which are often criticised to have built a Fortress of Europe.

9. Essential Links Deutsche Welle “EU needs to rethink its refugee policy”.

Human Rights Watch “No Easy Fix for Europe’s Asylum Policy”.

66

COMMITTEE ON CIVIL LIBERTIES, JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS II (LIBE II) !

! !

From protection to possibilities: After the rejected Minority SafePack Citizen's Initiative in 2013, which common strategy can the EU and its Member States pursue to ensure persons belonging to national and linguistic minorities have equal access to participation and representation in politics, the economy and civil society across Europe?

by Dorothea Weber (DE) 1. Video Links Minority SafePack Initiative: This is the promotional video for the Minority SafePack Initiative. It gives a broad introduction to the committee topic and briefly outlines the initiative’s goals.

Poland: Dispute over Silesian Minority | European Journal: This video shows the Silesian Minority in Poland and gives an example of the discrimination against a national and linguistic minority.

Key questions: What are other examples for national and linguistic minorities (see definition below)?

2. Key Terms Persons belonging to national and linguistic minorities are part of a community within a state, members of which are citizens, yet have different ethnic, linguistic or cultural characteristics than the majority of citizens in that state that they wish to preserve.

A European citizens' initiative (ECI) is an invitation to the European Commission to propose legislation on matters where the EU has competence to legislate. A citizens' initiative has to be backed by at least one million EU citizens, coming from at least 7 out of the 28 member states.

The open method of coordination (OMC) takes place in areas, which fall within the competence of the Member States, such as employment, social protection and social inclusion. Under this intergovernmental method, the Member States are evaluated by one another (peer pressure), with the Commission's role being limited to surveillance.

A lingua franca is a single common language that is used among people who speak various different languages. English is a very common lingua franca worldwide.

The Treaty on European Union (TEU) opens the way to political integration. It creates a European Union consisting of three pillars: the European Communities,

67

# #

Common Foreign and Security Policy, and police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. The Treaty introduces the concept of European citizenship.

The Treaty on the functioning of the European Union (TFEU) goes into deeper detail on the role, policies and operation of the EU. It organises the functioning of the Union and determines the areas of, delimitation of, and arrangements for exercising its competences.

A recommendation is a legal act that is not binding for Member States. It allows the institutions to make their views known and to suggest a line of action.

A person who is stateless has no nationality. They lack birth certificates, identity cards, passports and other documents; they risk being excluded from education, healthcare, social assistance and the right to vote. A stateless person may not be able to travel or work legally. As a result the stateless have to grapple with inequality and discrimination.

Separatism is often meant to describe secession, the complete separation of a part of a country from the rest. Separatist movements, however, usually do not have complete secession as their aim. They fight for political recognition and greater autonomy.

Key questions: How could the open method of coordination be used in the context of this topic?

Is the open method of coordination a strong enough tool to deal with the challenges facing the protection of national and linguistic minorities?

What can European citizens do when their citizen’s initiative is rejected?

Links for research: The procedure for European citizens’ initiatives is explained step by step by the European Commission.

Commission denies English language favouritism – an article about linguistic balance in EU institutions Regulations, Directives and other acts – An overview of the European Union’s legal acts with an explanatory video at the bottom of the page This map of minorities, native peoples and ethnic groups in Europe gives a good overview of where the groups are situated.

3. Relevance and explanation of the topic The European Union, once a mere Coal and Steel Community, has become a truly politicoeconomic union. While most would agree that the further European integration has had a mostly positive outcome they would also see the need for innovation, where policies have become outdated or lack measures. This is especially the case with the protection of national and linguistic minorities.

As these groups, per definition, belong to a certain Member State the protection of these people is not a European competence. People pertaining to these minorities, however, have certain concerns and wishes when it comes to European politics.

On 15 July 2013, the registration of the citizen’s initiative “Minority SafePack – one million signatures for diversity in Europe” was requested. The initiative lists six areas, which are of high relevance to national and linguistic minorities and even proposes concrete legal instruments to be used for each proposal, such as a systematic approach to

68

the EU’s language and culture policy and the establishment of a minority platform to enhance the political representation of minorities.

In September 2013, the European Commission rejected the initiative as the proposed initiative fell “manifestly outside the framework of the Commission’s powers”. The initiative is currently pending before the European Court of Justice.

The very important concerns raised by the citizens’ initiative, however, remain relevant and require creative solutions. The biggest concerns are certainly the inadequate representation of minorities in politics and the difficulty of preserving minority languages and cultures in a world where English has become an unofficial lingua franca.

This relevance frequently becomes apparent, when looking at separatist and secession movements in the EU. The most prominent regions are probably Scotland and Catalonia, but many minority regions within the EU seek recognition, which may lead to a separation from their current country of residence. While most minority regions have refrained from using violence, there are some separatist groups, such as Eta in the Basque country, which result to using violent measures to achieve their aims.

Key questions: Can the existing legal framework of the EU be used to improve the current situation in a different way than proposed by the initiative or does it need to be restructured?

Are there further challenges for national and linguistic minorities that the initiative has not mentioned?

Are there approaches similar to the citizens’ initiative that have been tried in the past years?

Links for research: The rejection letter from the European Commission explains the reasons for rejecting the initiative in more detail.

Minority SafePack: what does this European Citizens’ Initiative reveal about the EU? Doris Manu comments on the initiative on the FutureLab Europe blog.

The facts: European separatist movements - The National lists key points about separatist movements in Europe.

Here's How The Map Of Europe Would Be Redrawn If All The Separatist Movements Get Their Way - Dina Spector visualises the possible changes for Europe in the Business Insider.

These 8 places in Europe could be the next to try for independence - Rick Noack risks a glimpse into the future for the Washington Post.

4. Key Conflicts The issue of minority protection is, in itself, rather complex and wide-ranging. In order to bring in a structure, these key conflicts should be discussed before going into further detail.

Recent political events have shown that many national and linguistic minorities feel unheard and therefore seek recognition and sometimes even propose a separation from the state they live in.

69

The recognition is sometimes offered to them in the form of autonomy legislation, such as in the autonomous regions in Spain. After years of uproars in Member States. More often than not, the wish for separation cannot be granted for a multitude of reasons, such as the minorities’ insufficient economic strength.

There is also a big dispute about languages. While English is becoming more and more relevant to the European population, minority languages fear extinction. They are only rarely used for administrative or otherwise official purposes and therefore mostly remain relevant in the domestic context. On the other hand, maintaining minority languages is not only costly but also involves a lot of effort. English is spoken by most Europeans and is the go-to-language in a foreign environment worldwide. Language is an emotional subject for many, as it is so tightly connected with upbringing, education, culture and heritage.

The problem that especially national and linguistic minorities face is the dilemma between the national integrity of a state and the active protection of minority rights. Many believe that what makes a country a country is a single language, a common culture, maybe even a common religion. There seems to be a need for a homogeneous population in order to create a feeling of unity. Therefore, government leaders shy away from giving more rights to those with different languages and cultures living on the same territory.

The question remains, in the end, whether the EU should even intervene and, if so, how much and in which areas. It could focus on key points, such as the political representation of minorities on the European level, the protection of minority languages and the allocation of special funds to minorities. It could even go beyond the already proposed measures and try to cover as many of the political, economic and civil society factors as it can.

Should the aim be to create solutions for problems in all areas, priorities might need to be established in order to have realistic aims to work towards. While long-term plans will be needed, short-term options should probably not be left out of sight. European Funds could temporarily be reallocated to national and linguistic minorities or there could be temporary quotas in government or other institutions until a long-term plan shows results.

A conflict, which has been raised by many, is the ‘soft’ approach the EU has chosen until now: recommendations, cooperation and conventions - very few binding measures. Critics say that there is the possibility to act more decisively and point out that the weaker measures have not helped in the past. The question that comes up now is whether activities such as cultural exchange programmes or the sharing of best practices are the answer or whether more measurable solutions are needed.

Key questions: Should English as a lingua franca be seen as a danger to minority languages or as a factor that could help Europe come together even more?

Do the protection of minority rights and a state’s national integrity necessarily exclude each other?

Which other national and linguistic minorities have been granted special rights within their country of residence?

Links for research:

70

Eurostat: English reinforces its status as Europe’s ‘lingua franca’ – An article on EurActiv about the rising importance of English Catalonia vote: 80% back independence – An article on BBC News about the wish for separation of a national and linguistic minority

5. Key Actors The Federal Union of European Nationalities (FUEN) is the European umbrella organisation of the autochthonous, national minorities/ethnic groups in Europe. In 2014, FUEN has around 90 member organisations altogether.

The European Commission has rejected the initiative. It can propose legislation and has the ability survey the use of the open method of coordination by Member States. Considering the limited competences in this area, the Commission could propose a Recommendation.

The European Parliament and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs can co-decide the legislation proposed by the Commission together with the Council of the European Union.

The European Centre for Minority Issues (ECMI) conducts practice and policy-oriented research, provides information and documentation, and offers advisory services concerning minority-majority relations in Europe.

The Council of Europe also discusses the protection of minorities and has released a legally binding framework, which is explained in the section ‘measures in place’. Even though it is not an EU body, its work is relevant to the issue and therefore useful when thinking about further measures.

The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) is an EU body tasked with collecting and analysing data on fundamental rights.

The European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) is an international public interest law organisation working to combat anti-Romani racism and other human rights abuse through strategic litigation, research and policy development, advocacy and human rights education. Organisations such as this one are of great importance for persons belonging to minorities.

Persons belonging to national and linguistic minorities are directly affected by the decisions made. They struggle with their lack of representation in European politics and therefore have trouble being heard.

Key questions: Which other non-governmental organisations in Europe support national and linguistic minorities?

Who else is involved in these issues besides the mentioned key actors?

How do these key actors interact with each other?

Links for research: The FUEN reports about the SafePack Initiative on their website and posts the newest updates.

71

6. Measures in place The Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM) is the first legally binding multilateral instrument devoted to the protection of national minorities worldwide. The Council of Europe has also initiated the European Convention on Nationality, which, amongst other things, aims at avoiding people becoming stateless.

The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights has now included discrimination based on either language or the membership of a national minority as one of the areas in its multiannual framework for 2013-2017.

Since the adoption of the Racial Equality Directive and the Employment Equality Directive in 2000, the Member States have a shared minimum level of anti-discrimination law. This framework was strengthened in 2008 with the adoption of the Council Framework Decision that makes it possible to combat racism and xenophobia through a criminal law approach.

Key questions: What are these existing measures lacking?

How could these things be amended?

What is good about the existing legislation? What can be amended about the existing measures? Is there data, which proves this?

Which elements of EU legislation such as the TEU and the TFEU further contribute to the protection of minorities (listed in the Minority SafePack Initiative documents)?

Links for research: A summary of the Racial Equality Directive – Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 The text of the Employment Equality Directive – Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 A summary of the Council Framework Decision - Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 Hammarberg urges more protection for Europe’s “stateless people” – An article explaining the difficulties stateless people face.

The text of the European Convention on Nationality.

7. Conclusion The issue of minority protection thus remains a complex topic and a solution will not be easily achieved. Even though the EU has little competence in this area, a few possibilities remain. The EU can work with legal instruments such as recommendations, the Minority SafePack initiative can be further developed, and existing policies can be updated. The open method of coordination might be a useful tool in this area.

There can be no doubt that more needs to be done in order to protect national and linguistic minorities. As more integration takes place, Europe has the opportunity to

72

preserve its diversity while developing to a closer union. A common approach might be a valid option, as the majority of European states is dealing with minorities in their country.

8. Essential research links The Minority SafePack Initiative is an absolutely essential read for understanding this topic.

This factsheet about the protection of national minorities gives a better insight into the work of the Council of Europe.

The OMC explained a little more in detail.

73

COMMITTEE ON SECURITY AND DEFENCE (SEDE I) !

! !

From defence to stabilisation: With the extremist self-proclaimed ISIS now controlling large parts of Iraq and Syria, which joint steps should the EU Member States take to expand their Counter-Terrorism strategy on the matter and contribute to long-term stability in the region?

by Nora Wilhelm (CH) 1. Video Links The Islamic State, a documentary by Vice.

NYTimes video: The Evolution of ISIS. CNN: ISIS - the first terror group to build an Islamic state? CNN.

74

2. Key terms ISIS, ISIL, IS, SIC, Daish/Da’ish/Da’ash etc: the self-proclaimed caliphate has been attributed many different names, due to the changes the group itself made, the differences resulting from translations as well as the political implications of each name. Whilst they themselves would like to be called Islamic State (IS), Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) or Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) remain the most used names in the West, critics in Arabic countries predominantly call it Da’ish, DAESH or Daesh, the acronym of their Arabic name’s transliteration. For political and anti-propaganda reasons, it is considered suitable to use ISIS/ISIL/IS only with self-proclaimed in front of it.

Caliphate: a caliphate is a political and religious idea in which an Islamic government is led by a caliph, who is considered a legitimate successor of Prophet Muhammad. By establishing a Caliphate, the self-proclaimed ISIS and in particular its Caliph, now called Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, demands absolute authority over all Muslims.

Sunni and Shia: these are the two major denominations of Islam, with Shia being the minority (an estimated 15% of all Muslims). The historical disagreement about Prophet Muhammad’s succession as caliph of the Islamic community impacts political alliances and conflicts in the Middle East to this day. The self-proclaimed ISIS is a Sunni jihadist group, whilst Iraq is one of the few countries with a Shia majority.

Jihad: Although the term and its use is controversial, it is mainly used in the media to refer to the struggle against those who do not believe in Allah nor recognise the superiority of Muslims. Some translate it as the holy war undertaken as a sacred duty by Muslims, others as a “struggle against oneself”.

Key questions: Which implications do the various names of this group have and which name should best be used to refer to the self-proclaimed ISIS in the European context?

How theologically compatible with Islam are the practices and claims of this selfestablished Caliphate?

Links for research: The Economist: About the various names of ISIS. BBC: What’s the appeal of a caliphate?

Encyclopedia Britannica’s definition of caliphate.

Time: Jihad’s unholy ghost.

Daily Mail: ISIS militants outline chilling five-year plan for global domination.

3. Relevance and explanation of the topic In addition to the Human Rights violations committed by the self-proclaimed ISIS against various minorities (Kurd, Syrian, Shiite, Turkmen and Yazidi populations, Christians, women, …) and the humanitarian emergency that results from the unprecedented number of refugees fleeing the region, the imminence of the threat for Europe has been made apparent by recent events. Besides the beheading of British and French citizens, there has been the attack on the Jewish Museum in Brussels, which was committed by a jihadist returning from Syria, and the crimes in France including Charlie Hebdo, whose

75

perpetrators might have been linked to the self-proclaimed ISIS. These and additional digital attacks such as the hacking of U.S. Central Command showed that the West is not safe from the violence of the self-proclaimed ISIS mujahedeen and that their threats to murder anyone who does not align with their cause and annihilate the West need to be taken even more seriously than before.

Furthermore, ISIS and its continuous expansion pose serious problems for the already unstable states of Iraq and Syria, as well as other neighbouring countries. What’s more, the longer ISIS can continue conquering territory and establishing their laws in their territory, the stronger and more difficult to stop they become.

The barbaric acts of ISIS also have political consequences in Europe, where we observe an increasing islamophobia, stronger right-wing parties and more attacks on Muslim citizens. There are political consequence for other, on-going conflicts too, such as Israel-Palestine, with Benjamin Netanyahu accused of using the recent attacks to increase panic and Islamophobia, as well as to convince Jews from France to emigrate to Israel.

ISIS is also extremely problematic due to the fact that it is a new opponent, not comparable to any jihadist extremists the West has face before: both non-State (in the sense that there is no government that generally abides by international law and pressure with which conflicts could be solved diplomatically) and State (in the sense that it is much more than an insurgent terrorist group, it has an internal organisation that functions and is the State in the territories it controls), with unprecedented competences in propaganda and resources that allow it to successfully administrate the territories it controls.

Key questions: To what extend is ISIS a threat to European countries?

How does the terroristic activities of this and other extremist Islamic groups affect Muslim communities and individuals in Europe?

How does this conflict affect other previously political or armed conflicts?

How should European governments and the EU understand the self-proclaimed ISIS in other to best tailor their response?

Links for research: CNN: ISIS gaining ground in Yemen, competing with al Qaeda.

CNN: From Antwerp to Aleppo – and back; Europe’s nightmare.

Daily Mail: ISIS leader calls on Muslims to go to territory group has seized to build Islamic State.

The Guardian: Female jihadis publish guide to life under IS.

4. Key conflicts The self-proclaimed Islamic State in itself causes conflict on various levels, but most notably with the West, with the rest of the Muslim World, and specifically with the countries whose integrity it is currently challenging, namely the already unstable governments of Syria and Iraq. Also, the current situation can only be understood with thorough knowledge and understanding of previous conflicts in the region, where tensions reside, who the various actors and what their interests and relationships with each other are. It is important for instance to note that ISIS now plays a role in

76

the Syrian civil war that is waged between the regime of President Bashar al-Assad and his opponents, as well as the various states who are supporting either sides and now need to reconsider their strategic alliances facing what seems to be a common enemy. In any case, this extremely complex situation brings about a series of additional conflicts and questions. In this context, there are four main areas or objectives that the EU could prioritise.

Security in own territory: The security within the EU is mainly threatened by three forms of attack: independent attacks by so-called DYI terrorist who have pledged alliance to ISIS, EU citizens who join the jihad of the self-proclaimed ISIS and return to Europe to perpetuate attacks, and other members of ISIS who come to execute missions within the territory of the EU. For both possibilities, there are various options on how to try to prevent it. In addition to everything stipulated in the Action Plan of the second pillar of the CTS, suggestions include limiting traveling, more collection and conservation of passenger information or invalidating passports of those who travel to fight with ISIS, which is a measure that Canada for example implemented.

Such drastic steps might however represent a double-edged sword, as they render return for attacks impossible but also foster radicalisation by burning the bridges of rehabilitation.

Limit the expansion of ISIS or annihilate it: From cutting the financing to direct military intervention, over supporting the forces currently combatting the self-proclaimed ISIS, there are many options on how the EU could potentially weaken or try to eliminate Daesh. One important source of strength of the organisation is their propaganda ability. By projecting an image of confidence, control and inevitable victory, the self-proclaimed Caliphate continues to attract local and foreign recruits, while co-opting its opponents or intimidating them into submission.

Furthermore, successful propaganda also inspires other jihadist groups to more appalling acts and brutality. Therefore, countering them on a communication basis has been advocated as a priority by many experts and observers. Other strategies to weaken the jihadist group are trying to prevent the flux of fighters from the EU that are joining the ranks of Daesh and cutting its financial resources, in various possible ways.

In order to combat ISIS without intervening directly, there are several alternatives on how the EU could support those currently fighting the jihadist group, for instance through financial support and the delivery of material (mainly armament) or efforts to train the fighters. Concerning direct military intervention, it is essential to consider the legal basis on which this could happen. If the legal basis of intervention is given, the intervention still needs to be decided by the EU using the existing available resources: the CFSP, which requires all MS to agree. The CTS does not include any provision for pro-active intervention in foreign territory. Once it is established if the EU could intervene in the region to combat the self-proclaimed ISIS, it is important to consider if it should and whether such an intervention would truly lead to the achievement of the EU’s goals.

Focus on human rights and humanitarian aid: Traditionally, the EU (mainly due to its core values and limited possibilities for joint action) has focused on helping with humanitarian aid and trying to limit human rights violations. ISIS is adding their share to the already existing conflicts and the refugee situation, with an estimated three million people having fled from Syria alone, has already been qualified as a humanitarian disaster. These refugees are mostly located in neighbouring countries such as Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey. Granting asylum to more refugees as well as sending financial and material resources to help improve the situation on the grounds are examples of measures that could be taken under this objective.

77

Combat the roots of the problem within Europe: Estimates indicate that more than 3’000 European citizens have joined Daesh, most of them children of first or second generation immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries. Many have asked the question of how this came to be, how this European youth can feel so disconnected from the values of the countries they grew up in that they seek to defend such a brutal ideology. Whilst some point to Islamophobia, right-wing extremism, political alienation of Muslims and lack of integration of immigrants in European countries as potential causes, others argue that public institutions have been too cautious in intervening within socially isolated communities and potentially suspicious cases. Muslim governments and leaders intend to promote an alternative theological concept, a different view on Islam and a different way to live the religion, as a way to both counter the propaganda of Daesh and trying to get to those somewhat lost young people before they choose the path of jihad.

Key questions: Which context was the breeding ground for establishing such a strong jihadist group, why has it been able to develop for so long without intervention nor much international attention, and how the past actions and interventions of various states have influenced this situation?

Who is responsible to get the world rid of ISIS? What should the role of the EU, in its quality as a vanguard for human rights and almost neighbour to the warzone, be in the fight against the self-proclaimed ISIS? What are the aims and priorities of the EU in the context of the Daesh and other terrorist groups?

How should the EU try to reach these aims and in cooperation with which allies ?

What are the legal (on an international and EU level) requirements for a potential intervention in Iraq and/or Syria by the EU? If it could, should the EU intervene in the region? Would such an intervention lead to the completion of the aims of the EU and contribute to lasting peace in the region?

Links for research: Times: We must treat ISIS like a State to defeat it.

CNN: The anatomy of ISIS. The Guardian: The legal basis for the war against ISIS remains contentious.

One Europe: The “Europeans” in ISIS. Spectator: ISIS has conquered the media. It’s not doing as well on the ground.

CNN: What’s the world going to do about ISIS?

5. Key actors Self-proclaimed ISIS: The self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is a Sunni Islamic fundamentalist group whose aim is to unite the world’s Muslims under one Islamic state.

After its separation from Al-Qaeda, it established the Caliphate in June 2014 and changed its name to Islamic State (IS). Besides the beheadings with which they increased their presence in the Western media, they are considered guilty of mass executions, persecutions of minorities and Shiite Muslims. Its solid organisation, control

78

of vast territory and resources make it arguably the most powerful religious militant group in modern history.

The EU: close ally of the USA and part of the Western world, the EU is part of the declared enemies of Daesh. The MS who joined the counter-coalition are particularly threatened and certain MS have already been victim of attacks perpetrated by terrorists affiliated with the selfdeclared ISIS. The global counter-coalition lead by the USA: the USA called for the international community to fight ISIS together and formed a global counter-coalition of over 60 states, according to certain estimates, including many Arab States. They are conducting airstrikes in both Iraq and Syria, as well as supporting and training the forces of strategic allies such as the Kurds, “moderate” Syrian rebel groups and the Iraqi forces.

Kurds: the Kurds are a Sunni Muslim people, who have their own language and culture, and are splattered across a continuous territory in Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Armenia and Syria – a region colloquially known as Kurdistan. They have historically faced oppression by the governments of the states they lived in and were never fully granted they independence they wished for. The Peshmerga (fighters of the Kurds) are now one of the main groups fighting the self-proclaimed ISIS on the ground.

Turkey: Turkey’s cooperation with the efforts to stop ISIS has been reluctant at best during the first few months of countrer-action. Because they thought it would help evict Bashar al-Assad from the power, they allegedly let rebels pass through their territory knowing that they would join ISIS. Furthermore, the Turkish government for historical and political reasons no interest in helping the Kurds and seek to avoid them reaching any form of independence, which is why they have not supported them even when fighting was taking at their doorstep. Recently, Turkey has been more collaborative but Kurds fear their actions will be targeted at them rather than ISIS. The regime of Bashar al-Assad: Syria has been living in a civil war for more than three years now, with alleged war crimes being committed by the President’s forces. Any intervention has always been vetoed in the Security Council by Russia and China. The USA and their allies would have tried to get him to step down but have now given up this aim as ISIS becomes a priority.

Some experts say his regime might become an ally again due to their military capacity.

Free Syrian Army (FSA) and other Syrian rebel groups: these are the groups that have been challenging Assad’s regime for the past three years, with the conflict causing a humanitarian crisis. They are now being supported in their fight against ISIS and armed by the coalition.

United Arab Emirates: The UAE have a particular interest in defeating the self-declared ISIS, with is an added layer of complexity. This State is an ally of the Western nations and an important actor for the stability of the region, despite its dark past and current political practices, that are far from being compatible with the values of the EU. Key questions: How are the political alliances constructed and how are they likely to shift in the longer term?

Who are the most strategic allies for the EU in their efforts to reach the set

79

# priorities?

Links for research: The Huffington Post: You can’t understand ISIS if you don’t know the history of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia.

Vox: The Kurdish war: How ISIS and Syria are reigniting an old conflict in Turkey.

A Video by Time: How Iraqi Kurdistan is battling ISIS so we don’t have to.

National Post: Anti-ISIS coalition has mobilized up to 62 nations and groups.

6. Measures in place In 2005, the EU adopted a Counter-Terrorism Strategy (CTS) to combat terrorism that promotes “democracy, dialogue and good-governance to tackle the root causes of radicalisation”2. The Strategy focuses on four objectives: prevention, protection, pursuit and response. For each pillar, a series of measures where defined in the Action Plan that was adopted in 2007. However, whether the CTS is fully implemented or likely to be extended on a EU-wide basis is not known, mostly due to the secret nature of such measures.

Security in own territory: In addition to the Action Plan, specific counter-terrorism projects have been created over the years. For example, a European Programme for Critical Infrastructure Protection has been established in 20063. Furthermore, individual MS have deployed troops on their own grounds in order to try and secure potential targets, including targets of retaliation attacks, especially since the Charlie Hebdo murders. Concerning the aim to prevent Daesh fighters from returning and committing terror acts in their home countries, Various schemes are under discussion, most notably an EU-wide Passenger Names Record (PNR) for all air travel within the EU supplying up to 15 parameters that are mixed in a computer algorithm to help identify suspects4. In a conclusion from the EU Summit at the end of August, the 28 heads of state and government declared their commitment to a rapid initiation of European PNR retention. However, the measure remains controversial on the basis of the abuses regarding rights of privacy that might ensure and the price of the project (25 million €). When looking at EU wide-action so far, and this is corroborated by declarations of various EU officials and MS politicians, developing coherent measures to reduce risks is a struggle and it can be said that Daesh now is though to represent a threat that the EU is not prepared to respond to.

Limit the expansion of ISIS or annihilate it: The EU has so far taken little to no joint action except meetings, discussions, warnings and condemnation. Due to the secret nature of such strategies, it is not clear how the CTS is applied or whether it might potentially be extended. There has also been no action under the CFSP at this stage. However, MS have not hesitated to take action individually, with degrees of involvement ranging from condemning Daesh and expressing support for the global counter-coalition to

80

participation in the airstrikes it conducts, passing by the supplying of armament and material as well as sole humanitarian aid. Arab states are also largely involved in the coalition, with countries such as Jordan currently leading airstrikes (in this case especially as a retribution for the brutal murder of one of their pilots). At a recent NATO summit, it was decided that anti-ISIS fighters, including the Kurds and Iraqi troops, would be supported with material, supplies and training.

In order to stop the flux of fighters from Europe to the self-proclaimed IS, Gilles de Kerchove, the Belgian EU official who coordinates the EU’s counter-terrorism policy, declared the necessity to cooperate with big social media providers to develop and effective counter-narrative. Various MS are also exanimating the adoption of strict anti-terrorism laws, which would for instance make traveling abroad to receive military training a criminal act, as it is currently debated in Germany.

Focus on human rights and humanitarian aid: In 2014, the EU has augmented its humanitarian aid funding to €12 million in order to help alleviate the crisis. Individual MS have also taken similar actions and several have launched specific programs to help provide food and other types of supplies to the affected people. Various EU member states have also pledged to welcome Syrian refugees, but the numbers are still an extremely small percentage of the victims.

Combat the roots of the problem within Europe: The CTS includes measures to protect minorities to prevent revenge attacks directed at the Muslim community as a whole and individual MS have also taken action in this regard, to face immediate threats. However, this is a problem that lies deeply within the structure of European societies and the policies of their governments, and there has so far been no new major plan or strategy to tackle this. Past measures include elements like the European Action Day against Islamophobia and Religious Intolerance as well as special integration programs on the national level.

Key questions: Is joint EU action institutionally and politically possible for the various priorities?

To what extend are the governments of MS willing to limit the civil right to privacy in order to limit risks of a terrorist attack? And to what extend are their populations likely to accept such measures?

What exactly explains why reacting takes so long? Why was the EU not prepared for this and what needs to be changed for potential future threats?

Are the actions that are separately taken by individual MS all compatible with international and EU law as well as the EU’s core values?

Are the suggested solutions enough to resolve reach the aims?

Are the actions taken by other actors working towards the goals of the EU or are they on the contrary having contra-productive effects?

Links for research: World Time: Syria: Rebels battle with al-Qaeda fighters as Iraq implodes next door.

BBC: Islamic State: Is the US-led coalition working six months on?

European Leadership Network: The EU’s role in the fight against ISIS The Guardian: Major terrorist attack is “inevitable” as ISIS fighters return, say EU officials.

81

The Guardian: Europeans have joined the US in bombing ISIS – but what comes next?

The Huffington Post: What do America’s Arab partners against ISIS really want?

7. Conclusion The question thus is, in what manner can and should the EU, mainly through the expansion of the Counter-Terrorism Strategy, try to reach the above-mentioned goals? It is certain that stopping the growth of ISIS and the spread of its ideology is a matter of emergency, so is ensuring security within the EU. But how can these aims be reached? And does this leave room and funds for the tackling of longer-lasting issues, or the causes of such instabilities? An additional challenge is how to avoid the vicious circle of extremism, which is fuelled both by attacks on both sides and the retributions that these trigger. In this context, and keeping in mind the history of political instability and military intervention fostered the emergence of such jihadist groups, it is important to think about what a lasting solution could be and whether it is even possible for the EU to help stabilise the region in the long-term. Past examples of involvement from EU Member States in conflicts abroad have shown the complexity of intervening on the territory of another nation and the disastrous consequences it can lead to (ex: Rwanda). As often, an analysis of the past is necessary to understand the present and take the appropriate decisions for the future. Between limiting itself to humanitarian help, passing through close cooperation with allies such as USA/ Russia/Turkey or action through the NATO, up to direct and joint military intervention, there is a range of options that are more or less politically, financially and legally feasible. Taking into account the identity and interests of the various involved actors, what should the role of the EU be in the efforts of the international community to contain and demilitarise the Islamic State whilst catering for the de-escalation of conflict in the region? The ultimate question would be, is there a peaceful way to bring these conflicts to an end and reach long-term stability in the region?

8. Essential links EU Action Plan on combating terrorism (2007) Council of the EU Report on EU Action Plan on combatting terrorism (2011) The EU Counter-Terrorism Policy: main achievements and future challenges (2010) Revised Strategy on Terrorist Financing (2008) Specific Programme: Prevention, preparedness and consequence management of terrorism (2007-2013)

82

!

!

COMMITTEE ON SECURITY AND DEFENCE II (SEDE II) !

Unregulated Warfare: With European countries planning to produce drones for military purposes, how can the EU and its allies around the world reap the advantages of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) while safeguarding their compatibility with international law?

Raphael Bek (AT) “If war becomes unreal to the citizens of modern democracies, will they care enough to restrain and control the violence exercised in their name? Will they do so, if they and their sons and daughters are spared the hazards of combat?”

— Michael Ignatieff, Virtual War (2000)

1.Video links The strange tale of the Norden bombsight.

The kill decision shouldn't belong to a robot.

2.Key terms Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAVs) a.k.a. “drone”: an aircraft with no pilot on board.

UAVs can be remote controlled aircrafts (e.g. flown by a pilot at a ground control station) or can fly autonomously based on pre-programmed flight plans or more complex dynamic automation systems.

International law, commonly referred to as "public international law," regulates relations and activities between nations. It also contains rules regarding the operations of international organizations, such as the United Nations. In addition, it governs state treatment of individuals and juridical persons (i.e., non-natural persons, such as a corporation, association or partnership). o Human rights are “inalienable rights of all members of the human family” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights). The Universal Declaration gives an example of the substance of human rights agreements (although it is not itself a treaty, many nations have agreed to abide by its principles, and it serves as an inspiration for treaties on human rights). Specifically, the Universal Declaration calls on nations to respect the rights to life, liberty, and security (Article 3). o International Humanitarian Law (IHL, a.k.a. law of war) is a field of international law regulating armed conflict between states, and more recently, between states and informal groups and individuals. It protects persons who are not, or are no longer participating in, the hostilities and restricts the means and methods of warfare.

83

Links for research: A plain language guide to Eurojargo.

What is international Humanitarian Law? Summary of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Their Additional Protocols.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

3. Relevance and explanation of the problem An unmanned aerial vehicle (commonly known as a drone) is an aerial vehicle with no pilot on board. The aircraft may be remotely controlled or fly and operate autonomously through on-board software. UAVs, for both civil and military purposes, may cost from a few hundred euros up to tens of millions of euros.

There are various civil uses of drones, including recreational purposes (model airplanes), filmmaking, surveillance by police, search and rescue, traffic monitoring, package delivery, weather monitoring, or scientific research.

The advantages of drones are speed in various aspects, increased flexibility and precision, environmental friendliness, and an absence of emotions. Disadvantages include inhumanity, misuse/abuse, potential malfunction, unfair risk distribution, and physical and emotional distance between system and controller. Generally, international humanitarian law does not explicitly cover the use of UAVs. The EU and its Member States can benefit from the development, production, acquisition, and deployment of drone technology in terms of simplifying military security operations, border control, as well as missions under the Common Security and Defence Policy. The use of UAVs also bears innovations for military strategy and reduces costs and the needed human resources.

Member States have different national laws about UAVs, however these are mostly in the context of civilian use. Before the EU starts actively using drones for its missions in the future, legal and ethical questions need to be answered. For example, there are no clear or explicit rulings about harm and the consequent accountability caused by UAVs in either international nor EU law. Also, the issues of privacy or psychological stress (esp. in combat areas) by drone surveillance are already ongoing debates. As the EU is first and foremost based on human rights and peace, this can pose a serious threat to the Union's integrity regarding its fundamental values and principles.

Most notably, the US has been conducting drone strikes in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. Those strikes are justified by the “Authorisation for Use of Military Force”, a legal basis that was introduced in the US domestic law under the George W. Bush administration one week after the 9/11 incidents.

Key questions: What is the future of UAV/drone technology?

What are the implications that the use of UAVs bear in context of IHRL and IHL? How can the EU reconcile the use of drones with respect for human rights?

Links for research: The UAV.

84

Flying robots 101: Everything you need to know about drones.

Everything we know so far about drone strikes.

The Pros and Cons of Killer Robots.

4. Key conflicts At the moment the European market for security and defence goods is fragmented and largely nationalised. The reason for this is the misinterpretation of Article 346 1(b), which prevents the production of arms and related cooperation projects within the Union to fall under the rules of the single market. Due to this paragraph the development and production of defence goods is mostly happening on a national level instead of a more productive European internal market situation The aforementioned provisions apply to a list of war materials from a Council decision in 1958. Starting with the Defence Procurement Directive, the EU has only recently started taking measures to create efficient defence market structures and make its internal defence market more open and competitive, and less fragmented.

Currently, the stakeholders responsible for developing the EU’s drone policy (or market) are not subject to anything like the minimal democratic control that is exercised over EU legislative measures or national public expenditure. This means that there is very little to no scope for public debate, oversight, or civil society participation. This undemocratic process can only be challenged by national parliaments. The apparent lack of will to move from national competition to European integration in the UAV sector has been an obstacle, as Member States prioritise domestic spending over supporting cross-border collaborations.

Worldwide drones are covered under national laws, which leads to a very diverse legal landscape across the globe. Neither international law nor EU law explicitly cover the use of drones. Due to the distribution of roles in the EU’s defence policy, decisions taken are not a straightforward matter. If the EU wants to bring its decisions and views to international organisations, such as the UN or NATO, further effort is necessary, as the Union does not have a strong mandate in international organisations. Hence, the EU would have to make good use of soft diplomacy.

Simply within NATO, there is certainly a point where discussions about the use of drones may demonstrate a conflict of North American and European ideas of armed conflict and related ethical issues.

The use of force, as laid out in international humanitarian law (IHL), is lawful when carried out with the consent of the host state; and when the use of force is in self-defence to an armed attack or an imminent threat, and where the host state is unwilling or unable to take appropriate action. A legal problem arises when the enemy is located outside of host states’ territory (e.g. nonstate groups). In case of an armed conflict, the legality of any drone strike must be evaluated in accordance with IHL, including particularly the fundamental principles of distinction, proportionality, humanity, and military necessity.

International humanitarian law requires the use of the most technologically advanced weapon systems to the greatest possible extent in order to reduce the amount of civilian casualties as far as possible. The general principle of precaution is a critical pillar in IHL and presents further problems: precautionary measures vs. strategy considerations (i.e. the time to gather and process

85

#

information, or whether precautionary steps may reveal tactics) precautionary measures vs. personnel considerations (i.e. the risk to the soldiers and the operators of weapon systems) the precautionary measures vs. material considerations (i.e. the risk to the weapon systems)

Finally, drones bear an issue of accountability. Depending on the level of autonomy of the drone, anyone from the producers, over to the operator and the arbiter of the deployment can theoretically be held accountable. Drone autonomy can be classified as: Man in the loop: every action of the drone is controlled by a human operator Man on the loop: a human operator continuously sends decisions to the drone Man out of the loop (1): decisions are automated, human intervention is possible Man out of the loop (2): the drones makes autonomous decisions, possibly without monitoring by or reporting back to a human operator Civilian casualties can be caused by both human and systematic errors. International Human Rights law permits the intentional use of lethal force only when strictly necessary. The only exception is when there are “no other means, such as capture or non-lethal incapacitation, of preventing that threat to life”. With any armed attack, there is a transparency obligation, especially in the case of civilian victims. States must investigate war crimes allegations and prosecute where appropriate.

Key questions: How can the EU improve the development of drone technology?

Is there a will and/or necessity to form a more integrated internal market situation for UAVs in the EU? How can the EU have decisions regarding UAVs effectively implemented?

What ideas and views can and should the EU bring for consideration in international organisations?

Under what circumstances can the use of drones be justified?

Who is to be accountable for the harm caused by drones?

Links for research: FAQ: Towards a more competitive and efficient defence and security sector Eurodrones Inc. Hard Power, Soft Power, and the Goals of Diplomacy.

Autonomous Weapon System under International Law. List of war materials (Council Decision 255/58 of 15 April 1958).

Charter of the United Nations Chapter VII: Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of peace, and acts of aggression.

Autonomous Weapon Systems under International Law.

5. Key actors “Europol, Eurojust, and the Schengen System are striking examples of willingness to coordinate and harmonize action in relation to internal security threats.”

— Martin Trybus and Nigel D White, European Security Law (Oxford University Press, 2007)

86

The EU’s High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR) is responsible for the coordination of the Common Foreign Security Policy and the Common Security and Defence Policy. The HRs role also includes representation in international fora. In its work the HR is assisted by the European External Action Service and must remain in constant cooperation with various EU institutions and Member States.

The Council of the European Union (short: Council) meets in different configurations (depending on the matters discussed) and consists of national ministers. Together with the European Parliament the Council shares the final word on EU laws proposed by the Commission.

The Council is an important link between national governments and the Union’s joint foreign and defence policy. The European Defence Agency reports to the Council and helps to foster European defence cooperation.

The European Defense Agency (EDA) was created in 2004 as an agency of the Council, and is pursuing four goals: develop European capabilities, promote armaments co-operation between Member States, promote defense research and technology, and develop the necessary tools to increase the competitiveness of the defense industrial base and market in the EU. The United Nations (UN) is an intergovernmental organisation promoting international cooperation, established after the Second World War to prevent another such conflict. Hence, the EU and the UN are natural partners. Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union also backs this cooperation legally.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) is an intergovernmental military alliance based on the North Atlantic Treaty (signed in 1949). The organisation constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its member states agree to mutual defence in response to an attack by an external party. The original purpose of NATO was to help end the Cold War. Since the end of the Cold War NATO has lost its opposing force with the breakdown of the Soviet Union and has since been searching for a new role. EU actions are independent from NATO actions. Meanwhile, NATO needs coordinated common European efforts in order in the area of militaristic capacity development, which are more effective than single national efforts (i.e pooling, sharing, nichebuilding). It is also good to note that, not all Member States are members of NATO. The USA is a global military superpower, and also a member of the UN and NATO. The USA has been conducting numerous drone strikes against its various enemies (also known as “drone war” in the media). The Obama administration will only consider the EU as a serious actor if its able to take more responsibility for European and international security. The USA expects an effective EU effort contributing to stabilisation especially in Africa and euro-strategic areas.

The EU’s Member States act in both sovereignty and cooperation under common strategy and policy in the various contexts of UAV-related matters. They must decide and act within multiple processes and frameworks.

Key questions: How can the EU act most effectively within the NATO framework?

How (far) can agreements about values, principles and rules regarding armed conflict be reached between the USA and Europe?

Under what conditions does the right to self-defence allow for the use of lethal force on the territory of another state without its consent?

Links for research:

87

The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Council of the European Union Purposes and Principles of the United Nations How the European Union and the United Nations cooperate.

Drone strikes by US may violate international law, says UN.

6. Measures in place The Implementation Roadmap for Communication on European Defence and Security Sector provides the basis for the Commission's work programme for measures to be taken to strengthen the Single Market for defence, to promote a more competitive defence industry and to foster synergies between civil and military research. The implementation of the roadmap will require great efforts of all stakeholders, especially because past efforts to integrate the defence market have not been well supported across the institutions and Member States, and were hence not successful.

The Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) is a fundamentally intergovernmental issue, in which the Council (of the EU) acts unanimously. It is also a major element of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. Finance and operational means for missions are carried out under the CSDP framework are provided by Member States. The tasks carried out under the CSDP framework are humanitarian and rescue tasks, conflict prevention and peacekeeping tasks, tasks of combat forces in crisis management, joint disarmament operations, military advice and assistance tasks, and tasks in post-conflict stabilisation.

While international law does not explicitly cover drones, principles for current use and potential future policy can be drawn from international human rights law and international humanitarian law.

European law does not allow legislative acts to be adopted in the field of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. Meanwhile, the European Council and the Council of the EU shall adopt decisions on: strategic interests and objectives of the Union, actions to be undertaken by the Union, positions to be taken by the Union, and the procedures for implementing the actions and positions of the Union.

There have been few high-level gatherings related to unmanned aerial systems (UAS) in Europe.

Two gatherings conducted by the Commission in 2009 and the Commission and the European Defence Agency in 2010 made it clear that the European UAS sector is fragmented and that there was no coherent approach towards a common EU objective. The result was the “UAS Panel� initiative. High-level gatherings in the EU are necessary to drive agendas and strategies on a European level and enable common and coordinated efforts.

Key questions: How can the EU best foster a dialogue and action regarding UASs? Does current European law provide sufficient legal basis for the military use UAVs in the near future?

What initiatives on a European level are necessary to further develop UAVs for military use?

88

Links for research: • Legislation Summary: Towards a more competitive and efficient EU defence and security sector • Citizens’ Summary: reforming the defence and security sector • Common Foreign and Security Policy • Universal Declaration of Human Rights • European unmanned aircraft systems (UASs) • Conclusions of the first European High Level Conference on UAVs • Discussion paper: European Commission UAS Panel

7. Conclusion Neither international law nor EU law explicitly cover UAVs. Besides the advantages of UAVs their use is subject to case-by-case legal clarification. Worldwide UAVs fall under diverse national domestic policy, and also different positions and views about ethical and humanitarian principles.

The technological development, spending and deployment of drones vary strongly globally. Most notably, the USA has clearly made heavy use of drones for several years now. This may present a difficulty when the EU tries to share its principles and values in order to reach agreements in international organisations.

Within the EU, the market for war materials is still fragmented and makes (common) development and production harder. Besides the EU’s CSDP framework, there is hardly a dialogue about UAVs on a European level. An additional difficulty in the process is the scattered distribution of competences and responsibilities within the EU. To conclude, while advancing its internal UAV market, the EU must also foster dialogue about military use of UAVs and introduce a legal basis and finally try to share its decisions in international organisations. This must be conducted with consideration of international law and in good cooperation amongst the EUs various stakeholders.

8. Essential Links Drone Warfare and International Law: Findings of UN Reports on Extrajudicial and Arbitrary Executions Drones and targeted killing: defining a European position Experts meeting on armed drones and international law Eurodrones: too politically loaded a venture for Europe?

The&Dronisation&of&Wars.

89

90

91